A recent ruling in a federal court in Ohio brought the potential for good news for automotive manufacturers – links in an online database organizing a company’s raw product data may be copyrightable. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment explaining that the database may have sufficient originality to be protected by copyright law.

The case, Snap-On Business Solutions v. O’Neil Associates Inc., N.D. Ohio No. 09-1547, 4/16/10, was filed by Snap-On Business Solutions, a company that designs information solutions, diagnostic systems and essential tools and equipment programs, including parts databases, for original equipment manufacturers. For years, Snap-On managed an online parts-ordering database for Mitsubishi, which consisted of product data, catalog images, and navigational tools. In 2007, Mitsubishi began to consider whether to move its database to O’Neil & Associates Inc., a competitor of Snap-On and the defendant in the case.

“When Mitsubishi and Snap-On disagreed about Mitsubishi's rights to the information in the Snap-On database, however, Mitsubishi directed Defendant O'Neil to run a data retrieval program to recover data and images on Snap-On's servers,” wrote Judge James S. Gwin in his summary judgment opinion. In this regard, Mitsubishi provided O'Neil with the login credentials to enable O'Neil to collect the contents of the database surreptitiously using a data-scraping program that automatically retrieves data – a process that would take a Web user many hundreds of hours to retrieve using manual point-and-click methods. The credentials included those used by a variety of Mitsubishi dealers in order for O'Neil to avoid detection while scraping the data. Snap-On discovered the data retrieval after an increase in traffic caused by the automated program.

Snap-On filed the lawsuit in Ohio, making several claims, including a claim for copyright infringement and trespass to chattels. O’Neil filed a motion for summary judgment, stating that Snap-On failed to show that its database was capable of being protected by copyright.

The defendant’s argument primarily focused on the principle in copyright law that maintains that copyright protection may not extend to “functional” works. It argued that the elements of the database that Snap-On claimed were protected by copyright – i.e., the linking structure and organization of the data – were functional and not original enough to sustain a copyright protection.

In response, the court explained that Snap-On’s copyright registration establishes the presumption of originality and non-functionality. Further, the court noted that the protection of the registration extended only to the content within the database that was provided by Snap-On, such as the linking mechanism and the manner in which the data was organized. The court explained that the level of originality required for copyright protection is relatively low, and pointed to one of the pinnacle copyright cases, Feist Pub’lns Inc. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), where the court explained that while facts were not protected, protection could extend to the way the facts were organized, if done so originally.

In this regard, the court explained that the linking structure and navigational information were potentially protected because they were unique to the client’s business model. Alternatively, the links between the client’s product photographs and specific parts were likely beyond the scope of copyright. These factors provided Snap-On with sufficient evidence to defeat the summary judgment regarding the copyright claim.

The court also denied the defendant summary judgment with regard to the breach of contract, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and trespass to chattels claims.

This case provides good news for companies utilizing databases to store product information: if you insert some original components and strive to organize your data in a unique manner, components of the database may be protected under copyright law. Still, companies should ensure they cover all their bases and protect themselves contractually as well as via technological methods.

If you have any questions about this case, please contact Anthony Lupo and Sarah Bruno.

Anthony V. Lupo
lupo.anthony@arentfox.com
202.857.6353

Sarah L. Bruno
bruno.sarah@arentfox.com
202.775.5760