305:
created, advertised, or provided by the defendant
Skylink. Once the plaintiff proves those five they must also prove that the defendant trafficked in a product which was (i) designed or produced primarily for circumvention; (ii) made available despite only limited commercial significance other than circumvention; or (iii) marketed for use in circumvention of the controlling technological measure. Chamberlain never claimed that Skylink infringed its copyrights or contributed to third-party infringement nor did it show that its users were unauthorized to use the product. As Chamberlain failed to show the fourth and fifth requirements to prove their claim, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Skylink, writing,
44:
255:
remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." They also claimed that the Model 39 transmitter served a variety of functions that were unrelated to circumvention, that
Chamberlain had failed to demonstrate that its GDOs contained a computer program protected by copyright, that Skylink had not violated the DMCA because its acts fell within a safe harbor provision per §1201(f), and that Chamberlain's rolling code computer program did not protect a copyrighted computer program, but instead protects an uncopyrightable process.
195:
not among the last 1024 used codes and it is among the next 4096 codes. The
Security+ has additional functionality that will cause the GDO to resynchronize when two signals out of the acceptable range are transmitted in rapid succession. This was added in the case that homeowners use the same transmitter on multiple garage doors.
310:
transmitter facilitates the infringement of any right that the
Copyright Act protects. There can therefore be no reasonable relationship between the access that homeowners gain to Chamberlain's copyrighted software when using Skylink's Model 39 transmitter and the protections that the Copyright Act grants to Chamberlain.
198:
In 1992, Skylink produced a universal transmitter called Model 39 that was designed to work for both rolling code and non-rolling code GDOs. The Model 39 bypasses the
Chamberlain's rolling code system by imitating Security+'s resynchronization feature. The Model 39 transmitter sends three fixed codes
194:
where a nearby burglar may try to record the garage door opening signal. Chamberlain claims that the rolling code system makes it unlikely for a burglar to send a valid signal by replaying the recorded one. With rolling code protection, a garage door will open if and only if the transmitted code is
254:
In response, Skylink claimed that "consumers use the Model 39 transmitter to activate the
Security+ GDOs with Chamberlain's consent." §1201(a)(3)(A) states that to "circumvent a technological measure" means to "descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass,
304:
Chamberlain had the burden to prove that (1) they had ownership of a copyrighted work, (2) it was controlled by a technological measure that was circumvented, (3) third parties can access it (4) without authorization in a way that (5) infringes rights protected by the
Copyright Act due to a product
295:
In response to
Chamberlain's assertions that the DMCA "renders the pre-DMCA history in the GDO industry irrelevant," "fundamentally altered the legal landscape," and "overrode all pre-existing consumer expectations about the legitimate uses of products containing copyrighted embedded software," the
211:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a
278:
and the case was heard before the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In this case, Chamberlain claimed the District Court incorrectly placed the burden on Chamberlain to prove that the circumvention of its technological measures was unauthorized when it should have placed the
262:
The
District Court agreed with Skylink and because Chamberlain did not explicitly restrict the consumer's use of alternate transmitters, this was deemed an unconditional sale that implicitly authorized customers to use other transmitters. The court also noted that Chamberlain's construction and
300:
defense. By examining the structure and history of the statute and the intent of Congress, the court attempted to interpret the statutory language. The court found that the goals of the DMCA were to establish a balance between the competing interests of content owners and information users and
107:
Maker of replacement garage door openers (GDOs) did not violate the anti-trafficking provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), because owners of GDOs were authorized to access Plaintiff's GDO software and Plaintiff failed to allege or show a nexus between access and copyright
309:
Chamberlain, however, has failed to show not only the requisite lack of authorization, but also the necessary fifth element of its claim, the critical nexus between access and protection. Chamberlain neither alleged copyright infringement nor explained how the access provided by the Model 39
287:
The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling. The court explained that by explicitly stating that circumvention occurs "without the authority of the copyright owner," the DMCA requires the plaintiff alleging circumvention to show that the defendant's access was unauthorized.
296:
court disagreed. In Chamberlain's view, all use of products that contain copyrighted software and use protective technological measures would violate the DMCA and this would give companies a loophole around antitrust laws as well as take away the
291:
The Federal Circuit went on to clarify the nature of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions. The DMCA established causes of action for liability and did not establish a property right. Therefore, circumvention is not infringement in itself.
258:
Chamberlain claimed that (1) Skylink had the burden to prove that their use was authorized and (2) Chamberlain "never gave consumers explicit authorization to program competing universal transmitters into its rolling code openers."
163:, and holds that as Chamberlain had alleged that Skylink was in violation of the anti-trafficking provision, it had the burden to prove and failed to show that access was unauthorized and its rights were infringed under the
183:(GDOs). Universal garage door openers are used when people want to replace or purchase a spare transmitter to open their garage door. They are designed to interoperate with existing GDO systems, regardless of model.
445:
229:, Chamberlain alleged that Skylink's actions violated the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA and moved for summary judgment. The court denied Chamberlain's motion for summary judgment. In the second case,
222:
190:
software that actively alters the transmitted signal by cycling through a series of strings (of which only some are able to open the door). This rolling code is designed to protect against a potential
136:
54:
108:
infringement. Plaintiff had the burden to prove that Skylink's Model 39 garage door openers violated the DMCA and failed to do so. Summary judgment upheld in favor of Skylink.
155:
companies. It discusses the statutory structure and legislative history of the DMCA to help clarify the intent of the anti-circumvention provisions and decide who holds the
455:
266:
As Chamberlain did not show that Skylink's access was unauthorized, the District Court granted the motion for summary judgment to Skylink and dismissed the patent claims.
328:
263:
interpretation of the DMCA would make its own consumers violate §1201(a)(1), which prohibits circumvention of a technological measure that controls access.
199:
in rapid succession; this either causes the door to open due to the first code or it causes the door to resynchronize and open due to the latter two codes.
376:
450:
43:
397:
144:
417:
140:
118:
244:
Model 39 was designed to circumvent the protection mechanism placed by Chamberlain's rolling code (infringing §1201(a)(2)(A)).
440:
167:. As Chamberlain incorrectly argued that Skylink had the burden of proof and failed to prove their claim, the court upheld
460:
233:, Chamberlain alleged that Skylink infringed their patents and violated the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA.
321:
373:
164:
156:
72:
247:
It has limited commercial use other than to circumvent the rolling code (infringing §1201(a)(2)(B)).
180:
152:
122:
159:. It expresses that the statute creates a cause of action for liability and does not create a
87:
274:
Chamberlain appealed the District Court's decision of summary judgment granted to Skylink in
207:
This case involves the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) states:
168:
421:
380:
414:
148:
160:
17:
434:
191:
187:
95:
91:
401:
250:
It was marketed to circumvent that technology (infringing §1201(a)(2)(C)).
297:
223:
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
186:
Chamberlain markets a "Security+" line of GDOs which includes
135:, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004) is a legal case heard by the
446:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases
179:
This case involves two competitors that produce universal
370:
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.
132:
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.
36:
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.
279:
burden on Skylink to show that the use was authorized.
137:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
55:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
415:
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.
112:
101:
83:
78:
68:
60:
50:
34:
139:concerning the anti-trafficking provision of the
301:balance access control measures with fair use.
365:
363:
361:
359:
357:
355:
353:
351:
349:
347:
345:
209:
8:
151:, in the context of two competing universal
329:Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components
42:
31:
456:Digital Millennium Copyright Act case law
393:
391:
389:
322:Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes
341:
27:American legal case concerning the DMCA
7:
236:With regards to the DMCA claim in
25:
225:in two cases. In the first case,
221:Chamberlain sued Skylink in the
212:work protected under this title;
141:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
119:Digital Millennium Copyright Act
451:2004 in United States case law
240:, Chamberlain contended that:
1:
477:
117:
106:
41:
312:
214:
192:"code grabbing" attack
175:Background of the case
18:Chamberlain v. Skylink
441:Cryptography case law
307:
171:in favor of Skylink.
461:Garage door openers
181:garage door openers
420:2009-08-25 at the
379:2009-06-18 at the
217:Procedural history
153:garage door opener
123:Anti-circumvention
383:(Fed. Cir. 2004).
149:§ 1201(a)(2)
128:
127:
88:Arthur J. Gajarsa
16:(Redirected from
468:
425:
411:
405:
395:
384:
367:
169:summary judgment
79:Court membership
46:
32:
21:
476:
475:
471:
470:
469:
467:
466:
465:
431:
430:
429:
428:
422:Wayback Machine
412:
408:
396:
387:
381:Wayback Machine
368:
343:
338:
317:
285:
272:
219:
205:
177:
157:burden of proof
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
474:
472:
464:
463:
458:
453:
448:
443:
433:
432:
427:
426:
406:
398:17 U.S.C.
385:
340:
339:
337:
334:
333:
332:
325:
316:
313:
284:
281:
276:Chamberlain II
271:
268:
252:
251:
248:
245:
238:Chamberlain II
231:Chamberlain II
218:
215:
204:
201:
176:
173:
161:property right
145:17 U.S.C.
126:
125:
115:
114:
110:
109:
104:
103:
99:
98:
85:
84:Judges sitting
81:
80:
76:
75:
70:
66:
65:
62:
58:
57:
52:
48:
47:
39:
38:
26:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
473:
462:
459:
457:
454:
452:
449:
447:
444:
442:
439:
438:
436:
423:
419:
416:
410:
407:
403:
399:
394:
392:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
374:381 F.3d 1178
371:
366:
364:
362:
360:
358:
356:
354:
352:
350:
348:
346:
342:
335:
331:
330:
326:
324:
323:
319:
318:
314:
311:
306:
302:
299:
293:
289:
282:
280:
277:
270:Appeal issues
269:
267:
264:
260:
256:
249:
246:
243:
242:
241:
239:
234:
232:
228:
227:Chamberlain I
224:
216:
213:
208:
202:
200:
196:
193:
189:
184:
182:
174:
172:
170:
166:
165:Copyright Act
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
134:
133:
124:
120:
116:
111:
105:
102:Case opinions
100:
97:
93:
89:
86:
82:
77:
74:
73:381 F.3d 1178
71:
67:
64:Aug. 31, 2004
63:
59:
56:
53:
49:
45:
40:
37:
33:
30:
19:
409:
369:
327:
320:
308:
303:
294:
290:
286:
275:
273:
265:
261:
257:
253:
237:
235:
230:
226:
220:
210:
206:
203:Relevant law
197:
188:rolling code
185:
178:
131:
130:
129:
96:Sharon Prost
92:Richard Linn
35:
29:
402:§ 1201
435:Categories
336:References
418:Archived
377:Archived
315:See also
298:fair use
283:Decision
143:(DMCA),
113:Keywords
69:Citation
61:Decided
400:
147:
413:EFF,
51:Court
437::
388:^
372:,
344:^
121:,
94:,
90:,
424:.
404:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
