In Digital Drilling Data Systems, L.L.C. v. Petrolink Services, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Copyright Act does not preempt a state law claim for unjust enrichment because the state law satisfied the extra element test that requires one or more qualitatively different elements than those required for copyright to avoid preemption.
In Digital Drilling Data Systems, L.L.C. v. Petrolink Services, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Copyright Act did not preempt a state law claim for unjust enrichment because the state law satisfied the extra element test that requires one or more qualitatively different elements than those required for copyright to avoid preemption ( (5th Cir. July 2, 2020)).
Digital Drilling Data Systems, L.L.C. (Digidrill) provides data logging and visualization services to assist oil and gas exploration companies when drilling below the Earth's surface. Petrolink Services, Inc., one of Digidrill's competitors:
Learned that one of its largest customers might switch to Digidrill.Obtained unauthorized access to Digidrill's DataLogger software and developed RIG WITSML software to scrape data from DataLogger and transfer it to Petrolink for visualization.
Installed RIG WITSML on computers at hundreds of well sites but never sought permission from Digidrill to copy the data or database from the DataLogger databases.
Digidrill filed suit in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Petrolink for copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), unjust enrichment, and various other claims for computer fraud and trademark dilution. Following initiation of the suit, Petrolink agreed to a preliminary injunction to stop using RIG WITSML and Digidrill decided to only maintain its claims of copyright infringement, violation of the DMCA, and unjust enrichment.
The parties cross-moved for summary judgment and the district court:Granted summary judgment in favor of Petrolink with respect to the copyright infringement claim, concluding that:
DataLogger's corrected data values were not covered by copyright because they are facts; andDataLogger's database schema was protected by copyright as a non-literal element of the source code but there was no infringement because Digidrill did not show substantial similarity between the original and copied work.
Granted summary judgment in favor of Petrolink with respect to the DMCA violation claim, concluding that:
the USB security dongle and interface processes Digidrill had in place did not effectively control access to DataLogger; and
Petrolink did not circumvent measures to gain access to DataLogger.Denied Petrolink's motion for summary judgment with respect to the unjust enrichment claim, concluding that:
Petrolink's arguments that the claim was preempted by federal copyright law and could not be proven should be rejected; and
there is no preemption because the data at issue is factual and is not within the subject matter of copyright.