U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Parts Geek, LLC, 692 F.3d 1009

USAP sued Parts Geek and Thomason alleging copyright infringement of Manager-derived e-commerce software.
Manager 2000 was authored by Thomason; Partsbin licensed it to itself; Thomason later modified it while employed by Partsbin and USAP.
Thomason worked as Partsbin’s director of eServices and later as a USAP employee, making multiple version updates to Manager (2001, 2001 v2, 2003, 2005, July 2008, Versapart).
USAP acquired Partsbin in 2006, obtaining Partsbin’s IP, including software programs like Manager; successors continued development under USAP.
Parts Geek and Thomason sought summary judgment; district court held USAP had no ownership in Manager and awarded fees to defendants.
The Ninth Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded to resolve ownership and infringement issues regarding work-for-hire and derivative-derivative questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Thomason’s work for hire? ownership of enhancements	Thomason’s enhancements were made within the scope of employment; thus owned by Partsbin/USAP.	No written work-for-hire agreement; ownership remains with Thomason.	Genuine issue of material fact exists; jury could find work-for-hire ownership
Are Thomason’s enhancements derivative works with protectable originality	Enhancements are derivative works with non-trivial originality contributing to Manager.	Derivative works require allowable basis on preexisting work and may be limited; record undeveloped.	Genuine issue of material fact exists on derivative-work originality and scope
Did implied licenses or acquisition transfer ownership of derivative works to USAP	Thomason granted implied licenses to create derivative works; USAP acquired those rights in 2006.	No express license or clear transfer; unresolved on record.	Genuine issue of material fact; remand to determine licenses and transfer

JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2010) (software protection; work-for-hire considerations apply to software)
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (U.S. 1989) (work-for-hire framework; author v. employer)
Thomson v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998) (written instrument required for contract-like ownership shift)
Avtec Sys., Inc. v. Peiffer, 21 F.3d 568 (4th Cir. 1994) (scope of employment and work-for-hire prongs)
Shaul v. Cherry Valley-Springfield Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.3d 177 (2d Cir. 2004) (work-for-hire scope factors)
Entertainment Research Group v. Genesis Creative Grp., 122 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 1997) (derivative-work originality and Feist framework)
Durham Indus. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980) (derivative works; originality and encroachment on preexisting rights)
Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1991) (minimal originality required for copyright protection)
Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2000) (avoidance of unlawful incorporation in derivative works)