Compulife Software, Inc. v. Newman
9:16-cv-81942
| S.D. Fla. | Jun 12, 2017Background
- Compulife develops a quotation system (host-based engine + HTML web front-end) and maintains Term4Sale, a public site that produces term life insurance quotes from a proprietary, encrypted database. Compulife registered its HTML source code with the U.S. Copyright Office.
- NAAIP and BeyondQuotes operated public quote websites that Compulife alleges copied Compulife’s HTML and obtained quote data from Compulife’s server without authorization beginning in April 2015 and continuing intermittently.
- In September 2016 an Israeli server issued >800,000 "get" commands to Term4Sale, producing ~43.5 million quotes that were scraped and inserted into NAAIP/BeyondQuotes databases; Compulife later identified its digital watermark in those quotes.
- Compulife sued and moved for a preliminary injunction (seeking to stop use of scraped trade-secret information, prevent further scraping, and preserve related data). Compulife argued trade-secret misappropriation and copyright infringement.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing. Compulife did not quantify damages tied specifically to the September 2016 scraping, waited nearly three months after discovering the scraping to seek injunctive relief, and implemented technical countermeasures (watermark, degrade function, user agreement) after the incident.
- The court found the scraped data on defendant sites was stale and inaccurate by the time of the motion; Compulife could not show loss of existing customers or concrete harm that could not be remedied monetarily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on merits (trade-secret and copyright) | Compulife: scraping used Compulife HTML and misappropriated its proprietary database; therefore likely to succeed on trade-secret and copyright claims | Defendants: (implicitly) deny authorized access and dispute scope; challenged relief sought; argued scraping was discrete and remediable | Court: declined to resolve merits fully; noted Compulife failed to brief likelihood on copyright and limited motion to scraping-related issues; did not grant injunction because other factors failed |
| Irreparable injury | Compulife: scraping caused lost business, lost licensing opportunities, reputational harm and costs to remediate—injuries that cannot be undone by money | Defendants: injuries are quantifiable and remediable; scraped data was stale; Compulife delayed in seeking relief; Compulife implemented technical fixes | Court: No irreparable injury shown. Monetary remedies suffice; harms were speculative, unquantified, and largely attributable to broader conduct and Compulife’s own actions; delay undermined urgency |
| Immediacy/risk of recurrence | Compulife: risk of further scraping and ongoing use of scraped data warrants injunction | Defendants: no evidence of repeated scraping; Compulife adopted technical blocks and degrade function | Court: Found only a single scraping incident; Compulife’s post-incident measures made recurrence unlikely |
| Preservation / scope of relief requested | Compulife: injunction to stop use, stop further scraping, and require segregation/preservation/disclosure of scraped data and methods | Defendants: contested necessity given absence of irreparable harm and technical safeguards; opposed broad injunctive relief | Court: Denied injunctive and preservation relief because irreparable harm not shown; did not reach balance of harms or public interest analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2000) (four-factor preliminary injunction framework; injunction is extraordinary remedy)
- McDonald’s Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 1998) (preliminary injunction standards cited)
- Peter Letterese & Assocs., Inc. v. World Inst. of Scientology Enters., 533 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir. 2008) (likelihood of success does not automatically establish irreparable harm in copyright context)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (no automatic entitlement to injunction based solely on finding of infringement)
- Ferrero v. Associated Materials, Inc., 923 F.2d 1441 (11th Cir. 1991) (loss of customers and goodwill can constitute irreparable injury)
- Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974) (availability of later monetary compensation weighs against irreparable-harm claim)
- Wreal, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 840 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2016) (delay in seeking preliminary injunction undermines finding of irreparable harm)