IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—E.D. Mich.: Order and sequence of steps in a user interface are driven by function and therefore not protectible, a court reaffirms, (Dec 7, 2023)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The court stands by its original holding that it could resolve the claim without expert testimony.

Expert testimony was not needed to reach the conclusion that key aspects of a computer program’s user interface were dictated by the external needs of the program and therefore could not qualify for copyright protection, the federal court for Detroit has held. The court, in denying reconsideration of its earlier decision to dismiss the software manufacturer’s complaint on the pleadings, emphasized that the lawsuit did not involve an analysis of software code or any other complex technical work, but rather the “comparatively simple” matter of analyzing the sequence of pages visible to the program user (SnagPod, LLC v. Precision Kiosk Technologies, Inc., December 6, 2023, Borman, P.).

The lawsuit involves a dispute between two companies that develop technologies for kiosk-based blood alcohol testing. SnagPod is a Michigan-based company that, according to its website, has developed “a unique method of testing and reporting individuals’ blood alcohol levels” that is designed especially for probation and parole who monitor parole activities. Minneapolis-based Precision Kiosk Technologies provides, according to its own website, technology that “fully automates alcohol screening, pre-trial services and probation check-ins, and efficiently monitors participants in diversion, treatment, and work-release programs.”

The Michigan company sued its Minnesota competitor for copyright infringement, claiming that the company copied the functions, formats, and various visual elements of its user interface. In a decision that IP Law Daily covered in more detail here, the court granted judgment on the pleadings to the Minnesota company. The gravamen of the complaint, the court noted, that was both programs used the same sequence of pages when walking a user through the program. (For example, each had a “Welcome” page, followed by a “Personal Info” page, followed by an “Enter Your User ID” page, etc.) But this sequence of steps was all but dictated by the needs of the program itself, the court noted—any program accomplishing the same task would require the same pages. “In effect,” the court noted, to find copyright infringement here “would give [the Michigan company] patent protection for breathalyzer kiosks when all they have is a copyright in their [kiosk].”

The Michigan company moved for reconsideration, leading to this opinion.

Expert testimony. The court reaffirmed its finding that it did not need to rely on expert testimony to reach its conclusion. The Michigan company brought to the court’s attention on reconsideration Kohus v. Mariol, 328 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 2003), a Sixth Circuit case finding that expert testimony would be needed to resolve a claim of infringement of the design of a door latch. But this case was distinguishable, the court held. In Kohus, the court noted, expert testimony would be needed since the “drawings [were] technical in nature and a lay person [was] unlikely to understand what constitutes creativity in this area, which elements are standard for the industry, and which elements are dictated by efficiency or by external standards.” But the elements of the kiosk that the Michigan company sought to protect here were “not technical,” the court noted: “Our present dispute concerns the comparatively simple aspects of [the Michigan company’s] kiosk.” The court therefore did not commit error.

Presumption of validity. The court also reaffirmed its finding that the Michigan company was not entitled to a presumption of validity in the copyright to its kiosk. The Michigan company acknowledged that it registered its copyright more than five years after publication of the work, but argued that nothing in the Copyright Act precluded applying the presumption of validity beyond that timeline. The court easily dismissed that argument. “17 U.S.C. § 410(c) clearly states that a presumption of copyright validity exists when a certificate of registration is made within five years after first publication of the work,” the court noted. “It can only follow logically that a registration made outside of this five-year window is not entitled to this same presumption.”

The Case is No. 2:23-cv-10401-PDB-EAS.

Attorneys: Michael Thomas Fluhler (Rocklaw PLLC) for SnagPod LLC. Jeffrey S. Hengeveld (Plunkett Cooney PC) for Precision Kiosk Technologies, Inc.

Companies: SnagPod LLC; Precision Kiosk Technologies, Inc.

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet MichiganNews