Collegesource, Inc. v. Academyone, Inc.
597 F. App'x 116
| 3rd Cir. | 2015Background
- CollegeSource (CS) operates a paid database of digitized college catalogs and embeds copyright/disclaimer notices and a click-through Subscription Agreement prohibiting commercial use; CataLink hosts some catalogs for subscribing schools.
- AcademyOne (A1) launched a competing database in 2007 after hiring a Chinese subcontractor (Noah) and scraping catalogs from school websites; some files containing CS’s copyright notice were included.
- CS sued A1 in California; A1 successfully challenged general personal jurisdiction and that action was dismissed; CS then filed a parallel suit in Pennsylvania asserting largely the same federal claims and additional Pennsylvania contract/unjust enrichment counts.
- The Pennsylvania court conducted extensive proceedings (discovery, preliminary-injunction hearing) while the California appeal on jurisdiction was pending; Ninth Circuit later found specific jurisdiction in California and reinstated that action, but Pennsylvania declined to transfer the second-filed case back to California.
- District Court excluded late proffered CS evidence (Novak declarations and voluminous spreadsheets) and denied reopening discovery under Rule 16(b); it dismissed RICO claims and granted summary judgment for A1 on all remaining claims (CFAA, contract, unjust enrichment, Lanham Act claims, false advertising).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pennsylvania court should have dismissed or transferred case to California (first-filed rule / §1404) | CS: first-filed rule and convenience favor transfer to California | A1: Pennsylvania court had progressed further; CS’s counsel represented it would litigate in Pennsylvania | Denied transfer; court properly exercised discretion due to advanced proceedings and counsel’s representation |
| Exclusion of Novak declarations and denial to reopen discovery (Rule 16(b)) | CS: documents were summaries (Fed. R. Evid. 1006) and newly discovered; should be admitted and discovery reopened | A1: disclosures were untimely, within CS’s control, and belated expert-like summaries; no good cause to reopen | Exclusion affirmed; district court did not abuse discretion in treating materials as untimely expert opinion and denying reopening for lack of good cause |
| Sufficiency of predicate acts for RICO (NSPA, obstruction, wire fraud) | CS: alleged NSPA theft, obstruction of justice (false affidavits, destruction of evidence), and wire fraud (misrepresentations about removing catalogs) | A1: statutes/claims inapplicable; intellectual-property theft not covered by NSPA; alleged conduct not obstruction under RICO; statements not fraudulent | RICO dismissed: NSPA inapplicable to IP theft; obstruction allegations insufficient; wire-fraud allegations fail—no actionable fraud |
| Merits: CFAA (unauthorized access) | CS: A1 accessed CS servers via trial accounts, CataLink links, or hacking and thereby exceeded authorization under CFAA | A1: access was via public trial accounts and public links on school sites; no technological barrier bypassed or unauthorized access proved | Summary judgment for A1: no evidence of access "without authorization" or exceeding access under CFAA |
| Merits: Breach of contract (Subscription Agreement / Copyright disclaimers) | CS: A1 consented to Subscription Agreement via trial accounts; CataLink-sourced files and viewing Copyright Disclaimer bound A1 | A1: trial accounts did not produce evidence of downloading for commercial use; CataLink access was public; Copyright notice is not a unilateral contract | Summary judgment for A1: no breach shown |
| Merits: Unjust enrichment | CS: A1 was enriched by using CS’s curated materials | A1: purged materials after notice; no evidence of profit or damages | Summary judgment for A1: no unjust enrichment proven and no damages to reasonable certainty |
| Merits: Lanham Act (trademark infringement / unfair competition re: AdWords) | CS: A1’s purchase of AdWords using "CollegeSource" terms causes confusion | A1: ads were labeled/distinct; internet users savvy; no actual confusion evidence | Summary judgment for A1: no likelihood of confusion |
| Merits: False advertising (database accuracy; Moldoff emails) | CS: A1 misrepresented currency/accuracy of database and made misleading statements to colleges | A1: statements were not literally false and were at most ambiguous | Summary judgment for A1: no evidence of literal falsity or tendency to deceive |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Indus. Inc. v. Chicago Bridge & Iron Co., 735 F.3d 131 (3d Cir.) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229 (U.S.) (definition of a RICO "pattern")
- Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (U.S.) (NSPA does not cover theft of intangible intellectual property)
- LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir.) (interpretation of "authorization" under CFAA)
- Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced Systems Concepts, Inc., 638 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir.) (analysis of trademark/keyword advertising issues)
- Lum v. Bank of America, 361 F.3d 217 (3d Cir.) (fraud requires more than disagreement about meaning of statements)