Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
621 F.3d 1102 (2010)


Facts

Autodesk, Incorporated (Autodesk) (defendant) created and owned the copyright for the computer-design program AutoCAD. There were many versions of AutoCAD, and Release 14 was accompanied by a software license agreement (SLA). Release 14’s SLA stated that Autodesk retained title to copies of the software, that users obtained only a nontransferable license, and specified various restrictions on the use of the software. For instance, the SLA stated that users could not rent or lease the software, or use the software outside of the Western Hemisphere. One of Autodesk’s customers licensed 10 copies of Release 14 in March 1999. After purchasing licenses for an upgraded version, the customer sold several copies of Release 14 to Timothy Vernor (plaintiff). Vernor maintained an eBay account to sell various secondhand goods. When Vernor listed a copy of Release 14 on eBay, Autodesk filed a notice with eBay and Vernor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), alleging that sale of the Release 14 copy violated Autodesk’s copyrights in the program. Vernor filed a cross-notice under the DMCA, alleging that Autodesk’s copyright claim was invalid. When Autodesk did not respond, eBay reinstated Vernor’s auction. The same process occurred with three other copies of Release 14. However, on the fourth occurrence, eBay suspended Vernor’s account for repeated claims of copyright infringement. Although the account was reinstated after the cross-notice, Vernor filed an action for declaratory judgment to establish that his sales of Release 14 were allowed under the first-sale doctrine. Vernor and Autodesk each filed a motion for summary judgment after the close of discovery. The district court granted Vernor’s motion, and Autodesk appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Callahan, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.