Editing Copyright misuse (section)

==In the United States==
Although the misuse doctrine was a well-known defence in patent infringement cases, it was extended to copyright law in ''M. Witmark & Sons v Jensen'' for the first time.<ref>80 F. Supp. 843 (D. Minn. 1948)</ref> Consequently, copyright misuse was adopted by various circuit courts in recent years. However, the contours of the doctrine remain uncertain as it is yet to be explicitly recognised by the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]]. Some scholars have even advocated for the codification of the misuse doctrine.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bell |first=Tom |year=2007 |title=Codifying Copyright's Misuse Defense |ssrn=983805 |journal=Utah Law Review |page=573 }}</ref>

=== ''Lasercomb America, Inc. v Reynolds'' ===
In ''Lasercomb America, Inc. v Reynolds,''<ref>supra note 3 at 975 ("the public policy behind the grant of copyright and patent is essentially the same")</ref> the Fourth Circuit became the first appellate court to uphold a copyright misuse defence as analogous to the patent misuse defence. In this case, Lasercomb had sued Reynolds for making unauthorised copies of its die-making software, which was subject to copyright protection. Reynolds alleged that Lasercomb had misused its copyright by imposing unreasonable non-compete clause that restricted creating a competing product for a period of one hundred years in its standard licensing agreement.<ref>supra note 3 at 973</ref> The Court ruled that although the inclusion of such a provision did not constitute an antitrust violation, it did violate the public policy underlying copyright and rendered Lasercomb’s copyright unenforceable.  The Court also held that the defendant need not be subjected to the purported misuse in order to set up a valid defence as Reynolds had not signed the standard licensing agreement.<ref name="n3979">supra note 3 at 979</ref> Lastly, the Court clarified that Lasercomb was free to initiate a suit for infringement once it has purged itself of the misuse and its copyright was not invalidated.<ref name="n3979"/>

=== ''Practice Management Information Corp. v American Medical Association'' ===
The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|Ninth Circuit]] was the next circuit to adopt the copyright misuse doctrine in ''Practice Management Information Corp. v American Medical Association''.<ref>121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997)</ref> In this case, American Medical Association granted Health Care Financing Administration (now known as the [[Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services|Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]]) a non-exclusive, royalty-free perpetual license to use its coding system for medical procedures.<ref>Ibid. at 517</ref> However, the license was restricted, as no other coding system could be used.<ref>supra note 11 at 520-521</ref> Practice Management, a publisher and distributor of medical books, filed for declaratory relief to have the copyright invalidated when it failed to procure the volume discount it requested.<ref name="n11521">supra note 11 at 521</ref> The Court refused to invalidate the copyright but ruled that the licensing provision requiring exclusive use of the coding system constituted copyright misuse.<ref name="n11521"/>

=== ''Alcatel USA Inc. v DGI Technologies Inc.'' ===
The [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] upheld the defence of copyright misuse in ''Alcatel USA, Inc. v DGI Technologies, Inc''.<ref>166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999)</ref> Alcatel licensed the use of its software only along with its manufactured equipment.<ref>166 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 1999)</ref> The terms of the license banned downloading or copying Alcatel’s software. However, DGI downloaded and copied Alcatel’s software in violation of the licensing agreement in order to ensure compatibility with its product.<ref>supra note 16 at 778</ref> In a suit for infringement of copyright, DGI claimed misuse of copyright by Alcatel.<ref>supra note 16 796</ref> The Court found Alcatel to have exceeded the scope of the copyright grant to gain an extended monopoly, which effectively constituted a copyright misuse.

=== ''Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v WIREdata Inc.'' ===
The doctrine of copyright misuse was upheld by the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|Seventh Circuit]] in ''Assessment Technologies of WI, LLC v WIREdata Inc'',<ref>350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003)</ref> which is another case involving computer software. In this case, WIREdata sought public information about a number of properties from the Wisconsin municipalities. The information was collected by the municipalities and compiled using the plaintiff’s software for tax assessment purposes. Hence, some municipalities refused to furnish the information for fear of infringing Assessment Technologies’ copyright.<ref>ibid. at 642</ref> WIREdata, the defendants in this case, sued in state court for the release of information and Assessment Technologies sued in federal court, claiming that the release would violate its copyright. The Court held that the conduct of the plaintiff amounted to copyright misuse as the information withheld by the municipalities were beyond the purview of the said copyright.

=== ''Video Pipeline, Inc. v Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.'' ===
In ''Video Pipeline, Inc. v Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.'',<ref>342 F.3d 191 (3d. Cir 2003) </ref> the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|Third Circuit]] stated that a copyright holder might commit misuse in trying to enforce a license that prohibits criticism of copyright-protected works. Video Pipeline had an agreement with Disney, which allowed it to compile more than 500 movie trailers. When Video Pipeline started to post the trailers online, Disney asked Video Pipeline to remove the trailers, as they were not covered by the terms of the license. Although Video Pipeline complied with Disney’s request, it sought a declaratory relief that its use of trailers online did not in any manner violate Disney’s copyright. Additionally, Video Pipeline amended the complaint to seek declaratory relief to use a two-minute video clip review it created out of sixty-two movies. Disney, which owned Buena Vista, filed a counterclaim for copyright infringement in response to the suit. The Court observed that the doctrine is yet to be affirmatively expressed by the United States Supreme Court and that the licensing terms were reasonable. Accordingly, the Court ultimately ruled that the doctrine was inapplicable to the factual matrix of this case.

This case has assumed significance because it was decided in a circuit wherein Redbox sued three major studios, namely Universal, Walter and Fox.