Dice Corp. v. Bold Technologies
556 F. App'x 378
6th Cir.2014Background
- Dice and Bold compete by licensing alarm-industry software (Dice software vs Manitou).
- ESC Central switched from Dice to Bold; data transition required live operation during parallel testing.
- Bold used an Extraction Program to pull customer data from Dice databases; program allegedly relied on public information and did not copy Dice source code.
- ALSCHART file and receiver drivers are at issue as allegedly proprietary aspects of Dice’s technology.
- Dice alleged MUTSA misappropriation, copyright, DMCA, and CFAA violations; Bold moved for summary judgment.
- District court granted summary judgment for Bold, denying Dice’s reconsideration and indicative ruling; Dice appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| MUTSA misappropriation elements | Dice argues ALSCHART/receiver drivers qualify as trade secrets. | Bold contends no protectable trade secret existed and no misappropriation proven. | MUTSA claim failed; no protectable trade secrets shown. |
| Copyright infringement and derivative-work theory | Dice contends Bold copied protectable elements via the Extraction Program. | Bold asserts only data extraction; no copying of protectable expression. | No copyright infringement; copying non-protectable or unproven elements. |
| DMCA § 1201 circumvention | Dice claims Bold circumvented protections via Go To Assist login. | No evidence of circumvention or link to Dice source code. | DMCA claim fails; argument not properly supported on appeal. |
| CFAA unauthorized access | Dice asserts Bold access to Dice servers via ESC Central mirrored network violated CFAA. | No intentional access to Dice source code or beyond consented activity. | CFAA claim rejected; no intentional unauthorized access shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (U.S. 2010) (precondition not jurisdictional; registration timing debated)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (copyright protects original expressions, not ideas)
- Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (only original, non-functional elements qualify for protection)
- Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2004) (three-element trade-secret claim displaced by MUTSA)
- Jordan v. Bowen, 808 F.2d 733 (10th Cir. 1987) (Rule 12.1/appeals mechanics for indicative rulings)