-TCB Christen v. iParadigms, LLC, No. 1:2010cv00620 - Document 23 (E.D. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Plaintiff's Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 8/4/10. (klau, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-TCB Christen v. iParadigms, LLC Doc. 23 Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES Filed 08/04/10 Page 1 of 9 DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division DIANA CHRISTEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA ) v- ) Civil Action l:10cv620 ) IPARADIGMS, LLC, ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANUDM OPINION This Dismiss, case is before the Court on Defendant's Motion To Plaintiff's Motion To Remand and Plaintiff's Motion To Strike. iParadigms owns and operates Turnitin, system used originality by of Works may be themselves. to written the available submitted to works institutions in order to to evaluate prevent the plagiarism. uploaded to Turnitin by instructors or by students After a Turnitin, content educational an online technology copy of system on compares the Turnitin articles and periodicals. the work the internet, and is electronically uploaded work student commercial electronically works databases to previously of journal Turnitin then produced an Originality Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 Report to be which provides a percentage of Filed 08/04/10 Page 2 of 9 the work that appears not original. Schools that participate to archive student works, which then become part of the database used by Turnitin to evaluate works in the future. If in the Turnitin system may choose the originality of this option is other students' selected the archived a graduate work is then stored as digital code. According student at to the the Complaint, University of Plaintiff Central learned that two of her papers were System by her alleges that has never commercial use of her manuscripts, databases of name, and confidential information she believed, a allegedly and had every commercial contained right database consented in to to nor to the use or other personal shared with others by her professor, in who submitted into the Turnitin she retention in its placed Florida instructor. Plaintiff iParadigms' was information, the manuscripts believe, would that not be and certainly would not be accessible via computer by millions of people worldwide. Plaintiff alleges that through iParadigms has "unlawfully detained" -2- its use of her Plaintiff's property. papers, She Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 asserts claims for replevin and unjust enrichment In four the (4) spring high (Count Filed 08/04/10 Page 3 of 9 I) , conversion (Count II) , (Count III). of 2 007, school Plaintiff's students, filed counsel, suit in on behalf this of Court for copyright infringement based upon the archiving of papers in the Turnitin this System. Court copyright granted claim infringement their Approximately summary holding alleged student by papers - one-year later, judgment that the Plaintiff constituted March dismissing only - in the fair act use Plaintiff's of digital 2008, copyright archiving under 17 of U.S.C. § 107. Plaintiff's the four Court high of school Appeals Fourth Circuit this ex. Court's rel. counsel, both as next students, for the appealed Fourth Vanderhye v. on all four iParadigms, to Circuit. issued a unanimous, decision friend and as the In counsel United April to States 2009, the published decision affirming fair LLC, use 562 factors. F.3d at 630 See A.V. (4th Cir. 2009). Congress that are specifically equivalent law. See prong test of has 17 U.S.C. must be to those § 301(a). met: (1) preempted all protected under state-law federal copyright For preemption to apply, the work the subject-matter of copyright as -3- must be "within rights the a twoscope specified in 17 U.S.C. §§ Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 102, 103"; and equivalent to (2) any the exclusive copyright as set out Berge v. Mgmt. Co. v. Bus. 2005). dismissed. See, of Mgmt. § the 106." scope of be federal United States ex rel. of Ala., Corp., law must 104 F.3d 1453, 351 F. 1463 Madison River Supp. 2d 436, 442 Any state-law claims that are preempted must be e.g., id. the preemption test there is an "extra element" so that it copyright (quotation omitted). that is Berge, copyright defendant satisfied unless the nature of the state "qualitatively claim." A the that changes is infringement inter alia, within the Univ. Software The second prong of action rights state (internal quotation marks omitted); (M.D.N.C. law granted under in 17 U.S.C. Board of Trs. (4th Cir.1997) "rights Filed 08/04/10 Page 4 of 9 different 104 F.3d infringement copied original claim from at a 1463 alleges, elements of the copyrighted work or encroached upon an exclusive right conferred by the copyright. F.2d 655, F. Supp. 568, 571 copyright 660 See Trandes Corp. (4th Cir. 2d at 443 (4th are derivative works, 996 351 (citing Avtec Cir.1994)). to Atkinson Co., see also Madison River Mgmt., 1993); "The reproduce v. Sys., Guy F. Inc. exclusive the v. rights copyrighted distribute copies of the work, display the work publicly." Madison River Mqmt., at 443 (citing 17 U.S.C. § 106). -4- Peiffer, 21 F.3d conferred by work, a prepare and perform or 351 F. Supp. 2d Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 Here, there Plaintiff's be of states that copyright the 1463. rights that protection. that claims are Act copies iParadigms has rights to her property. has unlawfully Instead, used accordingly demands any at also Act seek from explicitly alleges 104 copies of the F.3d any of at to vindicate those that are claims. (Count II) alleges that, manuscripts Plaintiff tangible that to medium of her Plaintiff does not claim that the -- subject- extends Berge, they issue the tangible Plaintiff's deprived retained Plaintiff commercially of within copyright different" claim works Copyright See infringement conversion digital fall in 102. the are preempted unless protected by copyright database, § - of fixed "qualitatively Plaintiff's that The matter are Copyright Thus, question manuscripts subject works expression. storing no unpublished matter literary can Filed 08/04/10 Page 5 of 9 manuscripts iParadigms manuscripts has on in in its exclusive iParadigms themselves. stored its system and and the purging of the copies. It is clear on its face that the conversion claim is simply a copyright Indeed, on one i-e. , infringement claim dressed in state-law clothing. the claim seeks to hold defendant liable for encroaching of the exclusive rights granted by the Copyright Act the right to use and reproduce the copyrighted work. Trandes Corp. , 996 F.2d at 660. -5- Accordingly, as courts -- See in this Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 Circuit have preempted. 368 F. routinely See, Supp. e.g., 2d Defendant's recognized, 536 to (E.D. dismiss Trandes allegations of "mere preemption by the Corp., Foundation v. Ham, the ("Federal courts, conversion claim under federal be brought v. Demoulin, the a of piece Melville B. at then, F. Supp. of 1183, seeking work -- property Nimmer & 1-57 (2010) -- David Moreover, is retaining Plaintiff, because a from Nimmer to that matter Kan. avoid 2008) when a covered and should Count, 2001) the actual is that Inc. ("[I]f defendant's return of a preempted."); l on § Copyright conversion claims based are preempted). Plaintiff physical (D. claim (stating that because Charleston preempted the Nimmer, grants (D.S.C. found is 1193 the on "unauthorized reproductions" of Kinderqartners not Inc., (stating 748 subject damages and 659 737, the claim."); claim College claim Court insufficient generally the 2d at are 2d upon {"The are unlawfully retained by F.2d Supp. law, only a was claims Netsolve, conversion Act); have copyright is physical 1.01[B][l] F. encroaches 171 plaintiff reproduction Copyright copyright as 996 v. 2005) reproduction" 585 Inc. Va. Plaintiff alleges no physical object Defendant."); conversion Microstrategy, 533, motion Filed 08/04/10 Page 6 of 9 has not object that alleged that itself iParadigms belongs to the dismissal of Plaintiff's conversion claim is mandated -6- Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 by Fourth 1463-64 claims Circuit (a to conversion own the nembod[ied]"). digital code instead, that precedent. claim object Here, See, is e.g., Berge, 104 unless a preempted in which Plaintiff Filed 08/04/10 Page 7 of 9 the intellectual does not claim that F.3d at plaintiff property she owns is the in which her work is stored on the Tumitin system; she claims she owns the intellectual property stored in code, a claim that is equivalent to a copyright infringement claim and therefore preempted. Plaintiff's retains copies replevin claim of Plaintiff asks from Plaintiff's the documents (Count Court its to databases I) alleges manuscripts order and that defendant in its Defendant to award database. to purge damages the for the detention of her work. Like complains Plaintiff's of manuscripts exclusive Defendant's and Moreover, action thus province replevin claim law. of replevin recognized of no claim Virginia replevin cause of use seeks the (Count I) See Plaintiff's conversion and to claim, the retention vindicate Copyright a Act. of replevin claim a copy of her right that is the Thus, Plaintiff's is also preempted. for replevin is available under Virginia Code §8.01-218, shall claim action be hereafter would in "Replevin fail Virginia -7- abolished" brought."). even because if it ("No Finally, were replevin a seeks Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 recovery of Plaintiff in a specific seeks defendant's piece destruction of databases, of tangible the which Filed 08/04/10 Page 8 of 9 digital is not property. code that tangible Here, is stored property and therefore not the proper subject of a replevin suit. Plaintiff's unjust iParadigms received that Plaintiff's property. enrichment claim (Count a commercial benefit Like Plaintiff's III) alleges from the use of conversion claim, the unjust enrichment claim requests that the Court order iParadigms to purge the unpublished manuscripts it is well settled that unjust from its databases. enrichment copying are preempted by the Copyright Act, claims Because based on this claim should be dismissed. According Defendant in the to are the the copies iParadigms wrongful act, Complaint, of as to reproduction of those papers, the that protections have claims considered based preempted, afforded on and 537-38 (unjust See, Copyright of is are The the Act. held, unfair Plaintiff's e.g., enrichment that code. Plaintiff, the allegations must be dismissed. computer question have therefore papers received by stored alleged use and a claim that falls squarely within by the benefits Plaintiff's database according the unjust -8- alleging the unjust copying Microstrateqy, claim As courts enrichment and use enrichment 368 F. Supp. unlawful use are claim 2d at and Case 1:10-cv-00620-CMH -TCB Document 23 retention of Collezione Europa U.S.A., Supp. 444, 2d software preempted 450-51 Inc. claims allege "quasicontractual Costar Group, (D.Md.2001), Nimmer, § action for unjust the For the . Act Plaintiff's and must denied An appropriate Order shall law be and claims dismissed, as & of an Plaintiff's issue. United States District Judge Virginia , 2010 -9- are pre Plaintiff's Claude M. Hilton -^ 688 cause regarded /s/ August 2d Nimmer Strike denied. Alexandria, they parties"); Cir.2004); be F. unjust when Supp. state 243 pre-empted"). Copyright be (4th Act) ; that only F. should reasons, should 164 . . Ltd. between {"[A] foregoing Remand House, (noting (2010) enrichment Copyright preemption Inc., 544 1-51 and hence, 2003) relationship F.3d at the Hillsdale survive LoopNet, 373 1.01[B][l] empted by Motion v. aff'd, "equivalent right" For typically Inc. by (M.D.N.C. enrichment a v. Filed 08/04/10 Page 9 of 9 Motion To
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
