Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc.
697 F.3d 1221
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- RSA sues Evergreen for copyright infringement; district court granted summary judgment based on laches; Evergreen argued good faith and color of title foreclosing willfulness; RSA asserted ongoing and future infringements justify injunctive relief; the pre-suit period includes Evergreen’s 1999 draft manual and May 12, 1999 letter; Evergreen’s 1999 motion, 2010 counterclaim, and post-demand-letter diagrams were at issue; court affirmed summary judgment dismissing RSA’s claims and denied prospective relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars RSA’s copyright claim. | RSA argues willful infringement prevents laches. | Evergreen asserts delay was unreasonable and prejudicial to Evergreen. | Yes; laches barred RSA’s claim. |
| Whether willfulness excludes laches defense. | RSA contends Evergreen’s pre- and post-demand infringements were willful. | Evergreen acted under color of title and in good faith; scenes a faire. | No willfulness; laches applicable. |
| Whether laches bars prospective injunctive relief. | RSA seeks injunction for future infringements. | Future infringements duplicative of past ones and barred by laches. | Yes; prospective relief barred. |
| Whether Evergreen’s use was non-infringing under color of title and scenes a faire. | RSA argues lack of license and copyright protection. | Evergreen relied on color of title and scenes a faire; permissible. | Yes; no willful infringement post-demand. |
| Whether pre-suit and post-suit actions establish reasonable basis for non-infringement. | RSA claims Evergreen knew of infringement. | Evidence shows good faith and reasonable belief in license. | Pre-suit and post-suit actions support non-infringement finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) (willful infringement and laches framework; color-of-title defense)
- Haas v. Leo Feist, Inc., 234 F.2d 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1916) (inequitable to sit on rights when infringement is known)
- Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985) (no willfulness where license reasonably could exist)
- Asset Marketing Sys., Inc. v. Gagnon, 542 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2008) (licensing or implied license defeats willfulness)
- Apple Computer Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994) (scenes a faire doctrine limits copyright protection for standard ideas)
- Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) (scenes a faire applicability to standard driving-safety scenarios)
- Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Documents Servs., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) (reasonable belief in non-infringement can negate willfulness)
- Kling v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 225 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2000) (timing and reasonableness in laches assessment)