Advanced Copyright Issues on the Internet - Fenwick & West LLP

code in sequence to be sent to the receiver where it was stored, which code the receiver wouldrequire the next time the transmitter was activated, or the door would not open. 854The defendant sold a universal transmitter device that was capable of openingChamberlain’s GDO, although the opener code transmitted by the defendant’s door opener wasnot a rolling code. The defendant’s door opener was able to bypass Chamberlain’s rolling codefeature by mimicking a certain “resynchronization” process of Chamberlain’s rolling codesoftware. 855 Chamberlain characterized that portion of the computer program in the receiver thatverified the rolling code as a protective measure that controlled access to Chamberlain’scopyrighted computer program in the receiver, and argued that by circumventing the rolling codefeature and gaining access to the receiver computer program to open the garage door, thedefendant was in violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of Section 1201(a)(2). 856Rulings by the District Court. The district court denied a motion by Chamberlain forsummary judgment on the anti-circumvention claim, analyzing a number of defenses raised bythe defendant. The first defense was that because the defendant’s universal transmitter wascapable of operating a number of different GDOs, it was not “primarily” designed to circumventthe access control measure of Chamberlain’s GDO. The court rejected this argument, noting thatthe defendant’s transmitter had one particular setting that served only one function – to operatethe Chamberlain rolling code GDO. The fact that the transmitter was able to serve more thanone purpose was insufficient to deny summary judgment to Chamberlain. 857Next, the defendant argued that Chamberlain’s computer programs were not in factsubject to copyright protection. The court ruled that this argument raised a disputed issue ofmaterial fact sufficient to deny summary judgment, particularly since Chamberlain had notsupplied to the defendant the most recent version of the rolling code software until filing its replybrief (which differed from the version of the software that Chamberlain had registered), and thedefendant had therefore not had a sufficient opportunity to review it. 858Finally, the defendant argued that the consumers’ use of the defendant’s transmitter withChamberlain’s rolling code GDOs was authorized. In particular, Chamberlain argued that aconsumer who purchases a Chamberlain GDO owns it and has a right to use it to access his orher own garage. Before the defendant’s transmitter was capable of operating the rolling codeGDO, the consumer was required to program the transmitter into the GDO. The defendantargued that this fact demonstrated that the consumer had thereby authorized the use of thedefendant’s transmitter with the GDO software. The defendant further noted that the packagingfor Chamberlain’s GDO did not include any restrictions on the consumer’s ability to buy areplacement transmitter or additional transmitter. 859 Thus, according to the defendant, “those854855856857858859Id. at 1027-28.Id. at 1029-32.Id. at 1028, 1033.Id. at 1037-38.Id. at 1038.Id. at 1039.- 193 -