Copyright infringement case involving database-script source code; Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.; Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.; De minimis defense; Gordon v. Nextel Commc’ns; Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc. (Fed. Cir.); Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs. Inc., v. Grace Consulting Inc. (3d Cir.); MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng’g Co. (11th Cir.); 17 USC §§ 106(2)–(3); Stromback v. New Line Cinema; Design Data Corp. v. Unigate Enter., Inc. (9th Cir.); Actual damages; § 504(b); Remittitur; Gregory v. Shelby Cnty.; Cotter v. Christus Gardens, Inc.; Thoroughbred Software Int’l, Inc. v. Dice Corp.; Disgorgement damages; Balsley v. LFP, Inc.; Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Justin Combs Publ'g; Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG (9th Cir.); Amado v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir.); Veracode Inc. v. Appthority, Inc. (D MA); Golight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Fed. Cir.); Stay of an injunction that prohibited defendant from using the infringing database; Herman Miller, Inc. v. Palazzetti Imps. & Exps., Inc.; LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc.; “Safe-distance rule"; Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distrib., Inc.; Taubman Co. v. Webfeats; PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Polo Ass'n, Inc. (2d Cir.)

The court held that the district court properly denied defendant-Carrier’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial where Carrier had infringed on plaintiff-ECIMOS’s copyright for a database script source code. After the parties terminated their business relationship, ECIMOS sued Carrier, alleging that it infringed on ECIMOS’s copyrighted database-script source code to aide a third party’s development of software Carrier now uses. A jury found for ECIMOS on its copyright claim and its Tennessee law contract claim, and the district court enjoined Carrier from using the database, but stayed the injunction. The court first rejected Carrier’s argument that its use of the source code was de minimis, holding that a de minimis “‘defense does not apply where the qualitative value of the copying is material.’” But it held that the district court erred by including a $118,000 “software migration fee” in the actual damages award where ECIMOS can only recover “damages that resulted from ‘the loss in the fair market value of the copyright, measured by the profits lost due to the infringement or by the value of the use of the copyrighted work to the infringer.’” Thus, it reduced the jury’s award for actual damages to $164,800. However, the court affirmed the $5 million disgorgement award where ECIMOS established proof of Carrier’s gross revenue during the infringement period. The court reduced the contract breach damages from $1.5 million, concluding that the only “non-speculative amount of damages” relating to the breach was $401,250. Thus, the total damages award was reduced from $6,782,800 to $5,566,050. The court affirmed the district court’s decisions as to its post-trial injunctions, holding that it did not abuse its discretion by indefinitely staying the injunction that prohibited Carrier from using its infringing database, or by finding that “ECIMOS’s assembled hardware items were not protectable derivative works or trade secrets as a matter of law, or in concluding that the safe-distance rule did not apply.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.