Internet & Copyright Litigation

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati has long played a central role in shaping the legal landscape for the online world. Our Internet & Copyright Litigation practice routinely tackles cutting-edge legal issues, from the earliest battles over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Internet domain names, and spam to today's cases over copyright online, free speech, and privacy. Our attorneys represent recognized industry leaders, early-stage start-ups, and a host of others in between. Among our current engagements is the ongoing representation of Google and YouTube in defense of the highly publicized copyright infringement action brought by Viacom. The Southern District of New York recently granted summary judgment in favor of Google and YouTube in that landmark case.

Our team of creative attorneys has established groundbreaking precedent in favor of our clients in case after case:

• Leading Copyright Cases
• Other Key Internet Cases
• Representative Privacy Cases
• Additional Representative Clients

Leading Copyright Cases

Viacom v. YouTube/Google & English Premier League v. YouTube/Google (S.D.N.Y.) These consolidated copyright cases challenged the operation of YouTube, the popular online video service owned by Google. Through their claims, the plaintiffs sought to dramatically weaken the protections afforded to online services by the safe harbors of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). We obtained summary judgment for YouTube and Google on all of the plaintiffs' claims based upon the DMCA. During the course of the case, we also secured orders confirming that the recovery of punitive damages is not available in copyright infringement actions, requiring that owners of foreign works register their copyrights in the United States in order to seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act, and protecting Google's source code from disclosure during discovery.

Real Networks v. Streambox (W.D.Wash.). In the first-ever case brought under the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we served as counsel to plaintiff Real Networks. Our team secured a preliminary injunction prohibiting the abuse of RealNetworks' ubiquitous technology.

Parker v. Google Inc. (E.D. Pa., 3d Cir.). In an order affirmed by the Third Circuit, our attorneys obtained dismissal of a copyright action brought against the Google Groups service. The court held that Google's non-volitional conduct in archiving Usenet postings did not constitute direct copyright infringement and ruled that the plaintiff's allegations could not give rise to secondary copyright infringement liability under the Copyright Act. The court also held that Google was immune under Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act from the plaintiff's state common-law claims.

CyberMedia v. Symantec (N.D. Cal.). Our attorneys represented software manufacturer CyberMedia in its suit for copyright infringement and trade-secret misappropriation against Symantec. We secured a preliminary injunction requiring Symantec to recall hundreds of thousands of copies of its infringing program, and prohibiting Symantec from further manufacturing, selling, or advertising its competitive program.

Field v. Google Inc. (D. Nev.). In a case that raised several issues of first impression for online copyright claims, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati attorneys obtained summary judgment for Google in a copyright infringement action challenging the propriety of the company's cache functionality. The court's opinion held that, by allowing end-users to access archival copies of Web pages through "Cached" links in its search results, Google did not directly infringe the copyrights on those Web pages. The court also held that Google's use of the copyrighted works was a protected fair use, that Google was immune from monetary damages under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and that Google had an implied license to cache the plaintiff's works.

Incredible Technologies v. Global VR (N.D. Ill., 7th Cir.). We represented Global VR, maker of the PGA Tour Golf arcade game against claims of copyright and trade-dress infringement brought by Incredible Technologies, maker of the competing Golden Tee arcade game. Following a six-day evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Incredible Technologies' request for a preliminary injunction and its opinion was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.

Fastware v. Gold Type (D. N.J.). In this case, the plaintiff alleged that our client, Gold Type, had infringed a copyright on the software used to power on-board computer systems in police cars. We inherited the case after a temporary restraining order had already issued and defeated the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, establishing an implied and irrevocable license defense based upon the extensive interactions between the parties.  

back to top

Other Key Internet Cases

Langdon v. Google (D. Del.) & Kinderstart v. Google (N.D. Cal.). In two cases challenging Google's right to control its search results and to determine which advertisements to carry, our attorneys obtained dismissals with prejudice of the actions. The Langdon court found that Google was immune from the claims under Section 230(c)(2) of the Communications Decency Act, and that the First Amendment safeguarded Google's ability to determine which advertisements to carry and how best to order its search results.

uBid v. Go Daddy (N.D. Ill.). In this action under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act against domain-name registrar Go Daddy, the firm successfully challenged personal jurisdiction predicated upon sales to forum residents through a highly interactive website. The complaint alleged that because Go Daddy sold services to Illinois residents through a website that was available to any person with an Internet connection anywhere in the world, Go Daddy was subject to general jurisdiction in Illinois. The Northern District of Illinois granted Go Daddy’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, agreeing with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati’s arguments that uBID’s expansive theory of personal jurisdiction violated traditional notions of general jurisdiction and due process.  

CompuServe v. CyberPromotions (S.D. Oh.). In this groundbreaking litigation, we represented CompuServe, a leading Internet service provider seeking to protect its service and its subscribers from unsolicited commercial email, or spam. Advancing a novel electronic trespass theory, we obtained a preliminary and then permanent injunction barring the defendant from sending such email to or through CompuServe.

Digital Envoy v. Google (N.D. Cal.). We successfully defended Google against trade-secret and related claims brought by a supplier of geotargeting technology, prevailing first on an innovative preemption theory, and later on a summary judgment motion directed to the plaintiff's damages claims.

Google v. Auctions Expert (Super. Ct. Cal.). We filed suit on Google's behalf in its first ever case attacking the activity known as "click fraud." We obtained a judgment in Google's favor and payment from the defendants.

Blue Mountain Arts v. Microsoft (Super. Ct. Cal.). The firm represented Blue Mountain, an online greeting-card company, in an unfair-competition suit against Microsoft. The suit alleged that Microsoft had engaged in anticompetitive practices by widely deploying a version of its Outlook Express program with filters that blocked Blue Mountain's email messages, while permitting Microsoft's competing messages to reach their intended recipients. Our attorneys obtained a temporary restraining order and, later, a preliminary injunction, barring Microsoft from continuing to distribute the software.

back to top

Representative Privacy Cases

Boring v. Google Inc. (W.D. Pa.). In this highly publicized case, the firm obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all privacy-related claims asserted against Google at the earliest stage of the litigation. The plaintiffs (a couple living in the Pittsburgh area) had alleged that while taking photographs for Google's Street View feature, a Google driver had entered onto their driveway. On this basis, the plaintiffs asserted claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, and other common law torts. The firm convinced the court that the conduct at issue did not (and could not) constitute invasion of privacy and that the plaintiffs' analogous claims were similarly devoid of merit. Those determinations were affirmed by the Third Circuit.

Levine v. XO Communications (N.J. Ct. of Appeals). The firm defended a putative class action brought against telecommunications provider XO Communications, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The plaintiff claimed that XO had sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements to a supposed class of some 100,000 recipients and sought $150 million in statutory damages. In the Hudson County Superior Court in New Jersey, XO prevailed on a motion declaring that the case could not be maintained as a class action. When the plaintiff appealed, XO obtained the first-ever appellate court decision declaring that claims under the TCPA could not properly be brought as class actions.

Viacom v. YouTube/Google & English Premier League v. YouTube/Google (S.D.N.Y.) In the course of defending these copyright actions, we successfully invoked the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), in a case of first impression, to convince the court to reject the plaintiffs' demands for production of all YouTube users' private videos.

In Re Jet Blue Airways (E.D.N.Y.). We successfully defended Acxiom Corporation against a nationwide class action alleging violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and related state law claims. The firm obtained an early dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Bell v. Acxiom (D. Ark.) In another privacy-related nationwide class action against Acxiom, we secured a dismissal with prejudice of the plaintiffs' invasion of privacy and negligence claims.

Narson v. Go Daddy (D. Ariz.) and Simonoff v. Expedia (W.D. Wash.). The firm successfully defended Go Daddy in a purported class action lawsuit alleging that Go Daddy violated the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA) by including more than the last five digits of credit or debit card numbers and/or card expiration dates on receipts provided to its customers via the Internet. The court agreed with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati's argument that FACTA does not apply to Internet merchants who do not print paper receipts for their customers and dismissed the action with prejudice. We secured the dismissal of a similar claim against Expedia on the same grounds.

back to top

Additional Representative Clients

Twitter, DivX, GoDaddy, Vuze, Ning, Playlist, Netflix, SpotRunner, MetaCafe, Scribd, Epicor, eHealth, and Lucasfilm

back to top