IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Ill.: Decade-long interaction between client and software vendor renders the source code a joint work, (Dec 12, 2025)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The client also made an independently copyrightable contribution by suggesting five paragraphs of instructional text.

The fact that a corporate client exchanged in over a decade’s worth of correspondence with its outside software developer over the scope and substance of the software product meant that the two parties intended to be joint authors of the resulting source code, the federal court for Chicago has held. The court, in rejecting the software developer’s copyright infringement claim, also held that the client’s substantive contributions to the software were independently copyrightable (RMR Home Solutions LLC v. Farris, No. 1:23-cv-07228 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2025)).

The dispute arises between a company called ProTaxAppeal and its outside software developer Daniel Farris. For over a decade, Farris create software to automate ProTaxAppeal’s property tax assessment business. But when the relationship between the two parties broke down in 2023, the software developer shut down the system, disrupting the company’s business operations. The company then sued its vendor for tortious interference as well as a declaration of non-infringement of copyright. The software developer, in turn, counterclaimed for copyright infringement.

The company moved for summary judgment on its tortious interference claim as well on the copyright infringement counterclaim, leading to this opinion.

Joint authorship. The court found that the Farris was a joint author of the software with Rick Robin, ProTaxAppeal’s owner. Under the Copyright Act, the court explained, a joint work requires “(1) intent to create a joint work; and (2) contribution of independently copyrightable material.” Moreover, the court explained, because either joint owner may exploit the joint work without the permission of the other, Farris could not sue for copyright infringement. Here, the court found, the company met each of the two prongs of the joint authorship test—meaning that Farris’ counterclaim must fail.

ProTaxAppeal met the first prong, the court found, because “the undisputed facts establish that Robin and Farris intended to be joint authors when the software was created and developed.” The evidence in the record showed email exchanges between the two spanning over ten years, the court emphasized, in many of which Robin made “direct requests of—and suggestions to—Farris involving the software.” Moreover, the court noted, the two engaged in an extensive exchange of ideas over how the software would “work and look” and Farris incorporated some of Robin’s contributions. Indeed, the court noted, Farris went so far as to “humor[] Robin over seemingly minor issues such as whether a letter should be lower or upper case.” Through this set of interactions, the court concluded, “the two evinced a shared intent to create the software together.” This prong was therefore met.

ProTaxAppeal also met the second prong, the court found, because Robin made substantive and independently copyrightable contributions. Most importantly, the court found, Robin authored five paragraphs of text for incorporation into the code—text that was “instructive and [that] include[d] emphasis and advice to clients.” Farris argued that this five-paragraph text was “effectively boilerplate, standardized and so commonly used in the industry”—but this was not true, the court found. To the contrary, under relevant precedent, the court noted, “text that includes specific instructions possesses more than enough originality and creativity to be copyrightable.” The second prong was therefore met as well, the court concluded—thus nixing Farris’ copyright claim.

Tortious interference. But while the company would prevail on the joint authorship claim, the tortious interference claim would have to await another day. When federal claims are dismissed before trial, the court noted, “there is a presumption that the court will relinquish jurisdiction over any remaining state law claims.” That presumption applied here, the court found—meaning that the state law tortious interference claim would have to be re-filed in state court.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-07228.

Judge: Shah, M.

Attorneys: Evan D. Brown (Neal & McDevitt LLC) for RMR Home Solutions LLC and Rick Robin. Elliot Scott Wiczer (Wiczer Jacobs, LLC) for Daniel Farris.

Companies: RMR Home Solutions LLC d/b/a ProTaxAppeal

Cases: Copyright TechnologyInternet NewYorkNews GCNNews