No. 20-
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`ACI INFORMATION GROUP,
`
`v.
`
`MIDLEVELU, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`On PetitiOn fOr a Writ Of CertiOrari tO the
`United StateS COUrt Of aPPealS fOr the eleventh CirCUit
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`patRIcIan M. Flanagan
`Fox RothschIlD llp
`777 South Flagler Drive
`Suite 1700 West Tower
`West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
`(561) 804-4477
`
`KIp D. nelson
`Counsel of Record
`Fox RothschIlD llp
`230 North Elm Street, Suite 1200
`Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
`(336) 378-5200
`knelson@foxrothschild.com
`
`RobeRt J. RohRbeRgeR
`Fox RothschIlD llp
`49 Market Street
`Morristown, New Jersey 07960
`(973) 994-7543
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`304405
`
`A
`
`(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
`
`

`

`QUESTIONS PRESENTED
`
`
`
`
`
`This is a copyright infringement case. The questions presented are as follows:
`
`1.
`
`A party who uses a copyrightable work with the implied license of a
`
`copyright owner is not liable for infringement. Such a license can arise from implied
`
`permission to use a work or a lack of objection. On the internet, the owners of
`
`potentially copyrightable publications (like blogs) can easily elect whether to
`
`continuously protect their work or, alternatively, to permit third parties (such as
`
`search engines) to use and redistribute their work. If an internet author chooses to
`
`make its work freely available on the internet, and to permit copying of the work,
`
`without making any effort to protect that work, does a party have an implied license
`
`to use and redistribute that content?
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The express language of a statute enacted by Congress dictates that a
`
`district court “shall” seek input from the Copyright Office whenever there is an
`
`allegation that a copyright registration was procured by fraud. Is this directive a
`
`statutory mandate (as the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held) or a waivable
`
`suggestion (as held by the Fifth Circuit and the court below)?
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`Newstex, LLC d/b/a ACI Information Group has no parent company, and no
`
`publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`RELATED CASES STATEMENT
`
`• MidlevelU, Inc. v. ACI Info. Grp. a/k/a Newstex LLC, No. 18-80843, U.S.
`
`District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Judgment entered Oct. 2,
`
`2019.
`
`• MidlevelU, Inc. v. ACI Info. Grp., No. 20-10856, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
`
`Eleventh Circuit. Judgment entered Mar. 3, 2021.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED ........................................................................................... i
`
`CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................................... ii
`
`RELATED CASES STATEMENT ................................................................................ iii
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... iv
`
`TABLE OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................ v
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES ............................................................................ vi
`
`OPINION BELOW ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`JURISDICTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED ...................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Statutory Scheme ..................................................................................... 3
`
`Factual Background ................................................................................. 5
`
`Procedural History ................................................................................... 7
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ............................................................ 9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`This Court should delineate the scope of the implied-license
`defense as it applies to internet publications ........................................ 10
`
`The Court should address the split in the lower courts over the
`meaning of Section 411(b) of the Copyright Act.................................... 18
`
`The issues presented are important questions of federal law
`and warrant review ................................................................................ 23
`
`D.
`
`The decision below is wrong ................................................................... 24
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`TABLE OF APPENDICES
`
`
`APPENDIX A — OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES
`APPENDIX A — OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES
`COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT,
`COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT,
`DATED MARCH 3, 2021
`DATED MARCH 3, 2021
`
`APPENDIX B — ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`APPENDIX B — ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
`COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
`DATED JANUARY 30, 2020
`DATED JANUARY 30, 2020
`
`APPENDIX C — ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`APPENDIX C — ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
`COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
`DATED OCTOBER 2, 2019
`DATED OCTOBER 2, 2019
`
`APPENDIX D — EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPT IN THE UNITED
`APPENDIX D — EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPT IN THE UNITED
`STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
`STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
`DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION,
`DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION,
`FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2019
`FILED SEPTEMBER 26, 2019
`
`APPENDIX E — EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPT IN THE UNITED
`APPENDIX E — EXCERPTS OF TRANSCRIPT IN THE UNITED
`STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
`STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT
`OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION,
`OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION,
`FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
`FILED SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
`
`APPENDIX F — OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`APPENDIX F — OPINION OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
`COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA,
`DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019
`DATED SEPTEMBER 10, 2019
`
`APPENDIX G — RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION
`APPENDIX G — RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases:
`
`AntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Techs., Inc.,
`976 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................. 18
`
`Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.,
`377 U.S. 476 (1964) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Ayestas v. Davis,
`138 S. Ct. 1080 (2018) .............................................................................................. 26
`
`Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods., Inc.,
`693 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 11
`
`Bangkok Broad. & T.V. Co. v. IPTV Corp.,
`742 F. Supp. 2d 1101 (C.D. Cal. 2010) ..................................................................... 13
`
`Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc.,
`650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................ 2
`
`Bayoh v. Afropunk Fest 2015 LLC,
`No. 18cv5820 (DLC), 2020 WL 229978 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2020) ........................... 22
`
`Beholder Prods., Inc. v. Catona,
`629 F. Supp. 2d 490 (E.D. Pa. 2009) ........................................................................ 13
`
`Bitmanagement Software GmBH v. United States,
`989 F.3d 938 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 13, 27
`
`Bowman v. Monsanto Co.,
`569 U.S. 278 (2013) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Buck v. Jewell-La Salle Realty Co.,
`283 U.S. 191 (1931) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Cambridge Univ. Press v. Patton,
`769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 17
`
`Chambers v. Green-Stubbs,
`No. 1:19-CV-093-GHD-DAS, 2021 WL 107252 (N.D. Miss. Jan. 12, 2021),
`appeal docketed, No. 21-60108 (5th Cir. Feb. 12, 2021) .......................................... 22
`
`Dawson Chem. Co. v. Rohm & Haas Co.,
`448 U.S. 176 (1980) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`De Forest Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States,
`273 U.S. 236 (1927) ............................................................................................ 10, 11
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand,
`734 F.3d 616 (7th Cir. 2013) .................................................................. 19, 20, 21, 27
`
`EF Cultural Travel BV v. Zefer Corp.,
`318 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen,
`908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) ...................................................................................... 3
`
`Eldred v. Ashcroft,
`537 U.S. 186 (2003) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. v. Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P.,
`948 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2020) .............................................................................. 21, 22
`
`Estate of Hevia v. Portrio Corp.,
`602 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2010) ....................................................................................... 13
`
`Field v. Google Inc.,
`412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006) ....................................................................... 15
`
`Geophysical Serv., Inc. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co.,
`784 F. App’x 253 (5th Cir. 2019) ........................................................................ 13, 16
`
`Gold Value Int’l Textile, Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing, LLC,
`925 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2019), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 1294 (2020) .................. 18-19
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters.,
`471 U.S. 539 (1985) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`938 F.3d 985 (9th Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, No. 19-1116
`(U.S. Mar. 9, 2020) ................................................................................................. 2, 6
`
`Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................... 12
`
`I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver,
`74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1996) .............................................................................. 3, 4, 24
`
`Joseph v. Buffalo News, Inc.,
`792 F. App’x 60 (2d Cir. 2019) .................................................................................. 12
`
`Karlson v. Red Door Homes, LLC,
`611 F. App’x 566 (11th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................ 12
`
`Lennar Homes of Tex. Sales & Mktg., Ltd. v. Perry Homes, LLC,
`117 F. Supp. 3d 913 (S.D. Tex. 2015) ....................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`LimeCoral, Ltd. v. CareerBuilder, LLC,
`889 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2018) .................................................................................... 16
`
`Lopez v. Davis,
`531 U.S. 230 (2001) .................................................................................................. 27
`
`Malat v. Riddell,
`383 U.S. 569 (1966) .................................................................................................. 26
`
`Maracich v. Spears,
`570 U.S. 48 (2013) .................................................................................................... 26
`
`Marino v. Usher,
`673 F. App’x 125 (3d Cir. 2016) ................................................................................ 12
`
`Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc.,
`832 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2016) .................................................................................... 13
`
`Murphy v. Lazarev,
`589 F. App’x 757 (6th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................. 12
`
`Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 545 (2014) .................................................................................................. 13
`
`Palmer/Kane LLC v. Rosen Book Works LLC,
`188 F. Supp. 3d 347 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ....................................................................... 22
`
`Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`No. 07-2757, 2008 WL 4410095 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 25, 2008) ...................................... 15
`
`Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 2
`
`Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc.,
`953 F.3d 56 (1st Cir. 2020) ....................................................................................... 11
`
`Quanta Comput., Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`553 U.S. 617 (2008) .................................................................................................. 11
`
`Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick,
`559 U.S. 154 (2010) .................................................................................................. 18
`
`Reinicke v. Creative Empire, LLC,
`669 F. App’x 470 (9th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 16
`
`Righthaven LLC v. Klerks,
`No. 2:10-cv-00741-GMN-LRL, 2010 WL 3724897 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2010) ........... 24
`
`Roberts v. Gordy,
`877 F.3d 1024 (11th Cir. 2017) ................................................................................ 19
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.,
`140 S. Ct. 1492 (2020) .............................................................................................. 13
`
`Russell v. Walmart Inc.,
`No. CV 19-5495-MWF (JCx), 2020 WL 9073046 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2020) ............ 22
`
`Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.,
`959 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2020), petition for cert. filed, No. 20-915
`(U.S. Jan. 4, 2021) .............................................................................................. 20, 24
`
`Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall,
`571 U.S. 83 (2013) .................................................................................................... 23
`
`Wheaton v. Peters,
`33 U.S. 591 (1834) ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Wine & Canvas Dev., LLC v. Muylle,
`868 F.3d 534 (7th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`Statutes & Other Authorities:
`
`U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8 ............................................................................................. 3
`
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) .................................................................................................... 3, 18
`
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`17 U.S.C. § 204 ............................................................................................................... 3
`
`17 U.S.C. § 408 ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 409 ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 410 ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`17 U.S.C. § 411 ..................................................................................................... passim
`
`17 U.S.C. § 412 ............................................................................................................... 7
`
`17 U.S.C. § 501(b) .................................................................................................... 4, 18
`
`17 U.S.C. § 701(a) .......................................................................................................... 2
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ........................................................................................................ 1
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ............................................................................................................. 8
`
`37 C.F.R. § 205.14 ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright
` § 7.20[B][2] (2019) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright
`§ 10.03[A][7] (2019) .................................................................................................... 4
`
`Alexander Weaver, Comment, Aggravated With Aggregators: Can International
`Copyright Law Help Save the Newsroom?, 26 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 1161 (2012) .... 25
`
`Brad A. Greenberg, Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Uses,
`85 U. Colo. L. Rev. 53 (2014) ................................................................................... 1-2
`
`Caroline Russ, Comment, TweetTakers & Instagram Fakers: Social Media &
`Copyright Infringement, 22 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 205 (2020) ..................... 17
`
`Christopher M. Newman, “What Exactly Are You Implying?”: The Elusive
`Nature of the Implied Copyright License, 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 501
`(2014) ........................................................................................................................ 12
`
`Copyright Issues under Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual
`Property Act of 2008, 29 A.L.R. Fed. 3d Art. 8 (2018) ........................................ 22-23
`
`Dieter Bohn, Why RSS Still Matters, The Verge (Mar. 14, 2013, 5:11 PM) ............... 5
`
`Dylan J. Quinn, Note and Comment, Associated Press v. Meltwater: Are Courts
`Being Fair to News Aggregators?, 15 Minn. J. L. Sci. & Tech. 1189 (2014) ........... 24
`
`Eric Goldman, More Confirmation that RSS Feeds Aren’t Just “Really Simple
`Stealing” – MidlevelU v. Newstex, Tech. & Marketing L. Blog (Mar. 7, 2021) ... 25
`
`Jane K. Winn, Crafting a License to Know from a Privilege to Access,
`79 Wash. L. Rev. 285 (2004) ..................................................................................... 14
`
`Jeffrey Kenneth Hirschey, Symbiotic Relationships: Pragmatic Acceptance of Data
`Scraping, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 897 (2014) ........................................................... 17
`
`Jie Lian, Twitters Beware: The Display and Performance Rights,
`21 Yale J. L. & Tech. 227 (2019) .............................................................................. 17
`
`John S. Sieman, Comment, Using the Implied License to Inject Common Sense into
`Digital Copyright, 85 N.C. L. Rev. 885 (2007) ......................................................... 24
`
`Monika Isia Jasiewicz, Comment, Copyright Protection in an Opt-Out World:
`Implied License Doctrine and News Aggregators, 122 Yale L.J. 837 (2012) .......... 17
`
`Orit Fischman Afori, Implied License: An Emerging New Standard in Copyright
`Law, 25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 275 (2009) .............................. 14
`
`Pub. L. No. 110-403, 122 Stat. 4256............................................................................ 18
`
`U.S. Copyright Office, Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights 34 (2009) ......... 19
`
`U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices
`§ 101.3(a) (3d ed. 2021) ............................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Newstex, LLC d/b/a ACI Information Group respectfully petitions for a writ of
`
`certiorari to review the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Eleventh Circuit in this case.
`
`OPINION BELOW
`
`The opinion of the court of appeals is reported at 989 F.3d 1205 and reproduced
`
`in the appendix at App. A. The district court’s decisions granting judgment as a
`
`matter of law, App. D at 269, and addressing the statutory requirement of contacting
`
`the Copyright Office, App. E at 255, 296, are unreported.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on March 3, 2021. This
`
`petition for writ of certiorari is being filed within 90 days of that date. The
`
`jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED
`
`Section 411(b) of Title 17 of the United States Code provides in relevant part:
`
`Registration and civil infringement actions
`
`(2) In any case in which inaccurate information . . . is alleged, the court
`shall request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court whether the
`inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of
`Copyrights to refuse registration.
`
`The full text of Section 411 is reproduced in the appendix at App. G.
`
`
`STATEMENT
`
`If copyright in the digital age were taken to an extreme, internet users would
`
`“infringe potentially dozens of copyrighted works each day, often unknowingly.” See
`
`Brad A. Greenberg, Copyright Trolls and Presumptively Fair Uses, 85 U. Colo. L. Rev.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`53, 82 (2014). This case presents two important issues regarding modern copyright
`
`law.
`
`The first question is how the traditional implied-license defense should be
`
`applied in the digital age, in which communication concerning appropriate use of
`
`publicly available content is provided by computer code rather than by words,
`
`impressions, and human interactions. Specifically, on the internet, website owners
`
`communicate their approval (or disapproval) of content aggregation1, scraping2, and
`
`sharing by using HTML tags3 and other coding to permit copying and distribution of
`
`publicly displayed works. Not surprisingly, the lower courts have struggled with
`
`integrating that modern communication into the common-law defense and have
`
`developed inconsistent tests for doing so. Particularly with the proliferation of online
`
`content (which will only continue to increase), the lower courts need guidance on this
`
`issue.
`
`The second question is whether district courts must follow the plain meaning
`
`of the legislature’s express directive that they make an inquiry to the Copyright
`
`Office4 when there has been an allegation of fraud as to the registration of a particular
`
`copyrighted work. The lower courts are divided on this issue.
`
`
`1 “Aggregation” in this context refers to the process of collecting digital content, and an “aggregator” is
`an entity that collects such content. See Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d
`876, 882 (2d Cir. 2011).
`
`2 “Scraping” involves “extracting data from a website and copying it into a structured format, allowing
`for data manipulation or analysis.” See hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 938 F.3d 985, 991 n.3 (9th
`Cir. 2019), petition for cert. filed, No. 19-1116 (U.S. Mar. 9, 2020).
`
`3 “HTML” refers to Hypertext Markup Language, the “instructions” for a website. See Perfect 10, Inc.
`v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1155 (9th Cir. 2007).
`4 The terms “Copyright Office” and “Register” are often used interchangeably, since the Register of
`Copyrights is the director of the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress. See 17 U.S.C. § 701(a).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`A.
`
`Statutory Scheme
`
`The Constitution empowers Congress “[t]o promote the Progress of Science and
`
`useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive
`
`Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.
`
`Consequently, federal copyright protection is a matter of statute. See Wheaton v.
`
`Peters, 33 U.S. 591, 661-62 (1834). Congress enacted the nation’s first copyright
`
`statute in 1790 and has overhauled federal copyright law several times since; the
`
`most recent comprehensive revision occurred in 1976. See Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537
`
`U.S. 186, 194-95 (2003).
`
`The Copyright Act in its current form protects “original works of authorship
`
`fixed in any tangible medium of expression . . . from which they can be perceived,
`
`reproduced, or otherwise communicated.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Under the Copyright
`
`Act, the owner of a copyright generally has the exclusive right to copy and use his or
`
`her work. See id. § 106.
`
`This appeal concerns two critical limitations on that right. First, a user of a
`
`copyrighted work is not liable for infringement if it had a license – written, oral, or
`
`implied – to use the work. See, e.g., Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558
`
`(9th Cir. 1990). Unlike an exclusive license, which must be in writing, a nonexclusive
`
`license can be implied by conduct and does not amount to a “transfer” of ownership.
`
`See 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 204. For an implied license, “[t]he copyright owner simply
`
`permits the use of a copyrighted work in a particular manner.” I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver,
`
`74 F.3d 768, 775 (7th Cir. 1996). Because the party has permission to use the work,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`an
`
`implied
`
`license
`
`“creates
`
`an
`
`affirmative
`
`defense
`
`to
`
`a
`
`claim
`
`of copyright infringement.” Id.; see also 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,
`
`Nimmer on Copyright § 10.03[A][7] (2019) (“When a nonexclusive license exists, it
`
`functions as a bar on suit by the copyright owner for copyright infringement.”).
`
`Second, although original works need not be registered to be protected, a
`
`copyright owner can seek to register a work with the Copyright Office in order to
`
`obtain certain statutory benefits. See 17 U.S.C. §§ 408, 409; see also U.S. Copyright
`
`Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices § 101.3(a) (3d ed. 2021). The
`
`Copyright Office examines such applications and can either issue a certificate of
`
`registration (if the necessary elements are met) or refuse registration. 17 U.S.C. §
`
`410.
`
`Among the various benefits available, someone who has obtained a registration
`
`from the Copyright Office can bring an infringement action against a party who has
`
`impermissibly used the copyrighted work. See id. §§ 411(a), 501(b). Nevertheless, a
`
`copyright owner cannot rely on a copyright registration if the registration was
`
`procured by fraud. When a registering party intentionally provides inaccurate
`
`information, and accurate information would have caused the Copyright Office to
`
`refuse registration, then the registration is null and void. Id. § 411(b)(1). A party
`
`accused of infringement can challenge a copyright registration based on such
`
`misconduct as part of its defense. At that point, the procedure is expressly stated in
`
`the Copyright Act: Congress has directed that a district court in such an infringement
`
`action “shall request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court whether the
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to
`
`refuse registration.” Id. § 411(b)(2) (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Factual Background
`
`The dispute in this case involves an aggregator, Newstex, LLC, that collected
`
`and distributed content from various publicly available sources on the internet. In
`
`2013, Newstex developed an educational product that aggregated (that is, collected)
`
`and then indexed and abstracted content from freely available materials. Included
`
`in the resulting compilation of indexed abstracts were summaries of selected content
`
`originally received from various Really Simple Syndication (“RSS”) feeds to which
`
`Newstex subscribed.5 Newstex’s product provided both searchable summaries as well
`
`as hyperlinks to the original internet webpages from which the information had been
`
`collected. Much like Google searches and other curations of internet content,
`
`Newstex’s product made it easier for its subscribers to find information about specific
`
`topics, all the while providing direct links to the original content sources. Various
`
`academic institutions subscribed to Newstex’s product, including the research library
`
`of this Court.
`
`
`5 An RSS feed is a list of information about a website that allows a subscriber’s software to access
`updates to the website in a standardized, computer-readable format. “[O]n a high level it means you
`can get a list of all the recent ‘new stuff’ that a site or a user or a channel (or whatever) has published.”
`Dieter Bohn, Why RSS Still Matters, The Verge
`(Mar. 14, 2013, 5:11 PM),
`http://theverge.com/2013/3/14/4105006/why-rss-still-matters. By now, more than 29 million websites
`around the world use RSS feeds to publish information. RSS Usage Statistics, BuiltWith,
`https://trends.builtwith.com/feeds/RSS (last visited May 27, 2021).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`MidlevelU, Inc. operated a blog for healthcare providers.6 MidlevelU made the
`
`full text of the blog articles available, without a charge, to anyone who subscribed to
`
`the blog’s RSS feed. Although an RSS feed can have terms or limitations regarding
`
`use of the website’s content, the MidLevelU blog had none. MidlevelU even
`
`specifically modified the default settings of the blog’s RSS feed so that the full text of
`
`all blog articles (as opposed to merely titles or brief summaries) were freely
`
`disseminated through the feed.7 In addition, MidlevelU’s website included
`
`automated instructions that allowed search engines’ indexing software to use and
`
`copy the entire content of the blog.8 These were intentionally selected settings that
`
`MidlevelU applied to the public accessibility of the content of its website.
`
`Newstex subscribed to MidlevelU’s full-text RSS feed from 2015 to 2017.
`
`Newstex’s software generated and indexed abstracts of each blog article, with full
`
`attribution to MidlevelU and a hyperlink to MidlevelU’s website.
`
`Meanwhile, MidlevelU registered approximately 50 blog articles with the
`
`Copyright Office. Some of these articles were republications of earlier works, yet
`
`MidlevelU improperly listed the date of creation as the republication date rather than
`
`
`6 The blog was free; MidlevelU generated revenue through fee-based services such as job boards and
`continuing education offerings unrelated to the RSS feed. See App. A at 2.
`
`7 MidlevelU used a content management system that, by default, would have limited the RSS feed to
`distributing only the titles and summaries of the ten most recent articles posted on the blog. MidlevelU
`deliberately changed the system’s default settings so that it instead distributed the full text of all
`articles contained on the blog.
`
`8 Website owners can create hidden files called “robots.txt” that provide specific automated
`instructions about what content the owners do or do not want indexed. See hiQ Labs, 938 F.3d at 990
`& n.2. MidlevelU consistently included on its website a robots.txt file, through which it explicitly
`instructed the indexing software used by search engines to freely use and copy the blog articles.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`the original date.9 Further, MidlevelU’s registration applications failed to identify
`
`preexisting works created by third parties.
`
`C.
`
`Procedural History
`
`In 2018, Newstex discontinued its educational product because it was
`
`unprofitable. A few months later, MidlevelU brought a copyright infringement action
`
`against Newstex for its previous aggregation of some of the blog articles.
`
`As part of its defense to the infringement suit, Newstex asserted that it had an
`
`implied license to use MidlevelU’s blog articles based on the specific settings
`
`MidlevelU had made to its website and RSS feed indicating that it approved of
`
`copying of the publicly available content. Newstex also asserted a counterclaim for
`
`lack of effectual copyright registrations based on MidlevelU’s having provided
`
`inaccurate information