This court affirmed the preliminary injunction. Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 315 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 2003) ( Taylor I). Before trial, Four Seasons stipulated it earned a profit of $45,976.
Before turning to the four Dataphase factors in the case at bar, the Court observes that these factors must be weighed before deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, regardless of the subject matter of the underlying lawsuit. Although Plaintiffs cite to the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Taylor Corporation v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, for the proposition that “[i]n copyright infringement cases, the general rule is that a showing of a prima facie case [of infringement] raises a presumption of irreparable harm,” 315 F.3d 1039, 1041–42 (8th Cir.2003), this “general rule” has not been good law since 2006, when the Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case of eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). Prior to the decision in eBay, preliminary injunction actions involving allegations of intellectual property infringement were evaluated differently than other alleged violations of law.
403 F.3d at 966. 315 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir.2003) ; 403 F.3d 958, 966 (8th Cir.2005). 315 F.3d at 1043.
"A District Court's decision to grant a preliminary injunction will not be overturned absent a clearly erroneous factual determination, an error of law, or an abuse of discretion." Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 315 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 2003). Whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate depends on four considerations: the probability that the movant will succeed on the merits; the threat of irreparable harm to the movant should the court deny the injunction; the balance between this harm and the harm that granting the injunction will cause to the other litigants; and the public interest.
"A certificate of registration constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of a copyright and of the facts, including ownership and existence, stated in the certificate." Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings LLC, 171 F. Supp. 2d 970, 972 (D. Minn. 2001), aff'd, 315 F.3d 1039 (8th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). U.S. Merchants contends that Presto's copyrights are invalid because Presto's copyright applications contained material inaccuracies.
As such, Emerson is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that he is the author of TrueView. See Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 315 F.3d 1039, 1042 (8th Cir. 2003) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)). Peakspeed argues that Emerson is neither the sole author of TrueView's source code, nor its joint author; or, in the alternative, that his work was done for hire, as an employee of Peakspeed.
Id. In other words, the Court must first consider whether the general idea of the works is objectively similar (i.e., the "extrinsic" portion of the test) and then determine whether there is similarity of expression (i.e., the "intrinsic" portion of the test). SeeTaylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 315 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2003). (i) Extrinsic Similarity
The jury was asked to determine whether Infogroup owns a valid copyright in its 2011 database, and whether DatabaseUSA's 2014 database copied protected expression in Infogroup's copyrighted work. Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 315 F.3d 1039, 1042 (8th Cir. 2003); Moore v. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc., 972 F.2d 939, 941 (8th Cir. 1992); see filing 462 at 15. The jury determined that it did, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that conclusion is supported by sufficient evidence.
And because copyright infringement is fairly likely to be shown, irreparable harm is presumed. Taylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC, 315 F.3d 1039, 1041-42 (8th Cir. 2003). Kushner moved about two months after Vickerman Company's critical emails were made—a longer period than from when they were discovered—so that presumption is not rebutted by movant's delay.
In other words, the Court must first consider whether the general idea of the works is objectively similar (the "extrinsic" portion of the test) and then determine whether there is similarity of expression (the "intrinsic" portion of the test). SeeTaylor Corp. v. Four Seasons Greetings, LLC , 315 F.3d 1039, 1043 (8th Cir. 2003). Wakeman has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of either step of that analysis.