Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
3D, Ltd. v. Spectratek Technologies, Inc.
Citation: 41 F. App'x 931Docket: No. 01-56604, 01-56787
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 18, 2002; Federal Appellate Court
Summary judgment is deemed appropriate under the "extrinsic test" when no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity in protectable expression, as established in Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures. In this case, 3D presented evidence indicating that Spectratek had access to its pattern, thus requiring less proof of substantial similarity compared to cases where access is not evident. The patterns in question consist of overlapping polygons; however, this similarity is considered an unprotectable idea rather than protectable expression, referencing Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc. The 3D-24 pattern features a repeating rectangular structure with wedge-shaped sections, while the Crystals pattern lacks any observable repetitive geometry. Although the two patterns exhibit some similarities in polygon size and density, these are overshadowed by significant differences, resulting in the failure to raise a triable issue of substantial similarity. The claim regarding the 3D-26 pattern fails for similar reasons, making the consideration of the district court's denial to amend the complaint unnecessary. The court did err in awarding attorney's fees, having determined 3D's claims were frivolous and motivated by anticompetitive purposes, largely based on 3D's misinformation during discovery. However, while the court rejected 3D's claims, it did not find them frivolous or objectively unreasonable, nor improperly anticompetitive due to an overestimation of copyright scope. The court noted that discovery infractions alone do not justify an award of attorney's fees, which should advance the purposes of the Copyright Act. Ultimately, the decision affirms the dismissal of 3D's claims in part but reverses the award of attorney's fees, ruling that each party shall bear its own costs. The disposition is not for publication and cannot be cited in future cases except as permitted by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.