Contracts – Attorney Evan Brown

April 9, 2024 Contracts

So-called “Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement” only protected one party’s information

mutual NDA

Eastern sued Herbalife for breach of the “Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement” into which the parties had entered. Eastern claimed Herbalife breached the agreement by disclosing Eastern’s confidential information to a competitor. Herbalife moved for summary judgment on Eastern’s claim for breach of the NDA. The court granted the summary judgment motion.

Was there trickery in drafting?

The NDA in many respects read like an NDA that would bind both parties to protect the other party’s confidential information. Its title contained the word “mutual”. It referred to a “Disclosing Party” and a “Receiving Party”. And it defined “Confidential Information” not by referring to the parties by name, but by saying that Confidential Information was comprised of certain information that the Disclosing Party makes available to the Receiving Party. So on quick glance, one might think it bound both parties to protect the other’s information.

But one critical feature of the agreement was fatal to Eastern’s claim. The word “Disclosing Party” was defined to include only Herbalife.

But what about other parts of the agreement?

Eastern argued that the parties intended the NDA to be mutually binding by pointing to the title of the agreement, references to the obligations of the “Parties”, and discussion of the remedies section which discussed remedies to which a “non-breaching party” would be entitled. Eastern argued that these instances of language showed that a remedy for breach should not be considered as available only for Herbalife.

Plain definitions prevailed

The court rejected Eastern’s argument, looking at the plain language of the agreement and noting that the general references that Eastern emphasized did not “vitiate” the NDA’s express definitions of “Disclosing Party” and “Confidential Information”.

Herbalife Int’l of America, Inc. v. Eastern Computer Exchange Inc., 2024 WL 1158344 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2024)

See also:

March 21, 2024 Blockchain, Contracts, Cryptocurrency

Bitcoin miner denied injunction against colocation service provider accused of removing rigs

Plaintiff Bitcoin miner sued defendant colocation hosting provider for breach of contract, conversion, and trespass to chattels under Washington law. After filing suit, plaintiff filed a motion for temporary restraining order against defendant, seeking to require defendant to restore plaintiff’s access to the more than 1,000 mining rigs that defendant allegedly removed from its hosting facility. The court denied the motion, finding that plaintiff had established only possible economic injury, not the kind of irreparable harm required for the issuance of a temporary restraining order.

The underlying agreement

In July 2021, the parties entered into an agreement whereby plaintiff would collocate 1,610 cryptocurrency mining rigs at defendant’s facility. Plaintiff had obtained a loan to purchase the rigs for over $6 million. Defendant was to operate the rigs at a high hash rate to efficiently mine Bitcoin, with defendant earning a portion of the mined BTC.

After plaintiff defaulted on its loan, however, in early 2023, defendant allegedly reduced the available power to the rigs, despite plaintiff having cured the delinquency. Plaintiff claimed this reduced power likewise reduced the amount of Bitcoin that imined, and claims that defendant reallocated resources to other miners in its facility from whom it could earn more money.

The discord between the parties continued through late 2023 and early 2024, with 402 rigs being removed, and then defendant’s eventual termination of the agreement. The parties then began disputing over the removal of the remaining rigs and alleged unpaid fees by plaintiff. In early March 2024, plaintiff attempted to retake possession of its rigs, only to allegedly find defendant’s facility empty and abandoned. This lawsuit followed.

No irreparable harm

The court observed that under applicable law, a party seeking injunctive relief must proffer evidence sufficient to establish a likelihood of irreparable harm and mere speculation of irreparable harm does not suffice. Moreover, the court noted, irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages. Further, the court stated that it is well established that economic injury alone does not support a finding of irreparable harm, because such injury can be remedied by a damage award.

In this situation, the court found there to be no problem of irreparable harm to plaintiff. The court distinguished this case from the case of EZ Blockchain LLC v. Blaise Energy Power, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (D.N.D. 2022), in which a court granted a temporary restraining order against a datacenter provider who had threatened to sell its customer’s rigs. In that case, the court found irreparable harm based on the fact that the miners were sophisticated technology and could not be easily replaced.

The court in this case found there was no evidence defendant was going to sell off plaintiff’s equipment. It was similarly unpersuaded that the upcoming Bitcoin halving (anticipated in April 2024) created extra urgency for plaintiffs to have access to their rigs prior to such time, after which mining Bitcoin will be less profitable. Instead, the court found that any losses could be compensated via money damages. And since plaintiff had not provided any evidence to support the idea it would be forced out of business in these circumstances, the court found it appropriate to deny plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order.

Block Mining, Inc. v. Hosting Source, LLC, 2024 WL 1156479 (W.D. Washington, March 18, 2024)

See also:

February 29, 2024 Contracts, Litigation

Nvidia forces consumer lawsuit into arbitration

arbitration provisoin

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Nvidia alleging that Nvidia falsely advertised a game streaming feature for its Shield line of devices which was later disabled, thus depriving consumers of a paid feature and devaluing their devices. The suit included claims of trespass to chattels, breach of implied warranty, and violations of various consumer protection laws.

Nvidia filed a motion to compel arbitration, citing an agreement that users ostensibly accepted during the device setup process. This agreement provided that disputes would be resolved through binding arbitration in accordance with Delaware laws and that any arbitration would be conducted by an arbitrator in California.

The court looked to the Federal Arbitration Act, which upholds arbitration agreements unless general contract defenses like fraud or unconscionability apply. Nvidia emphasized the initial setup process for Shield devices, during which users were required to agree to certain terms of use that included the arbitration provision. In light of Nvidia’s claim that this constituted clear consent to arbitrate disputes, the court examined whether this agreement was conscionable and whether it indeed covered the plaintiffs’ claims.

The court found the arbitration agreement enforceable, rejecting plaintiffs’ claims of both procedural and substantive unconscionability. The court concluded that the setup process provided sufficient notice to users about the arbitration agreement, and the terms of the agreement were not so one-sided as to be deemed unconscionable. Furthermore, the court determined that plaintiffs’ claims fell within the scope of the arbitration agreement, leading to a decision to stay the action pending arbitration in accordance with the agreement’s terms.

Davenport v. Nvidia Corporation, — F.Supp.3d —, 2024 WL 832387 (N.D. Cal. Feb 28, 2024)

See also:

February 18, 2024 Contracts, Licensing

Software reseller not entitled to preliminary injunction to protect customer relationships

Plaintiff CD appointed defendant SST to be the exclusive reseller to certain customers of CD’s software development platform. CD sued SST for breach, and SST likewise filed counterclaims for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. SST sought a preliminary injunction against CD, asking that the court prohibit CD from unilaterally terminating the reseller agreement.

SST asserted, among other things, that it would suffer irreparable harm from this termination, citing potential loss of solicited clients and reputational damage. CD argued, however, that these asserted harms could be remedied monetarily, and thus did not qualify as irreparable.

The court agreed with CD, finding SST’s arguments regarding reputational damage and loss of client relationships to be speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. As such, these claims did not meet the stringent criteria for irreparable harm, which requires a clear, immediate threat of injury that monetary compensation could not redress.

Further undermining SST’s claim of irreparable harm was the notion that any potential financial losses due to CD’s actions, including the costs associated with resolving issues with target accounts or transitioning to alternative software solutions, were quantifiable and thus recoverable in monetary terms. The court noted that SST’s reluctance to make additional payments to CD for resolving software access issues did not constitute irreparable harm, as those could be recouped in resolution of the contract dispute. Moreover, the court pointed out that SST’s concerns about CD not restoring access post-payment were speculative and lacked evidentiary support, given the record showing ongoing negotiations and concrete offers from CD.

Citizen Developer, LLC v. System Soft Tech., Inc., 2024 WL 554140 (M.D. Penn. February 12, 2024)

See also:

February 5, 2024 Contracts

Online retailer’s browsewrap agreement was not enforceable

browsewrap

Plaintiff sued defendant Urban Outfitters under California law over the way that the retailer routed messages sent using the company’s website. Defendant moved to compel arbitration, arguing that the terms and conditions on defendant’s website required plaintiff to submit to arbitration instead of going to court. The court denied the motion.

The key issue in the case was whether plaintiff, by completing her purchases on defendant’s website, was sufficiently notified of and thus agreed to the arbitration agreement embedded via hyperlinks on the checkout page. Defendant maintained that the language and placement of the hyperlinks on the order page were adequate to inform plaintiff of the arbitration terms, which she implicitly agreed to by finalizing her purchases. Plaintiff argued that the hyperlinks were not conspicuous enough to alert her to the arbitration terms, thus negating her consent to them.

The court looked at the nature of the online agreement and whether plaintiff had adequate notice of the arbitration agreement, thereby consenting to its terms. The court’s discussion touched upon the differences between “clickwrap” and “browsewrap” agreements, emphasizing that the latter, which defendant’s website purportedly used, often fails to meet the threshold for constructive notice due to the lack of explicit acknowledgment required from the user.

The court examined the specifics of what constitutes sufficient notice, pointing out that for a user to be on inquiry notice, the terms must be presented in a way that a reasonable person would notice and understand that their actions (such as clicking a button) indicate agreement to those terms. The court found that defendant’s method of presenting the arbitration terms – through hyperlinks in small, grey font that were not sufficiently set apart from surrounding text – did not meet this standard.

Rocha v. Urban Outfitters, 2024 WL 393486 (N.D. Cal., February 1, 2024)

See also:

January 31, 2024 Contracts, Trade Secrets

Unauthorized press release caused drone software deal to crash

drone software

Usually back in the boilerplate section, technology contracts often contain a provision saying the parties will not issue press releases without the prior written consent of the other party. Here is a recent case where failure to strictly abide by such a requirement resulted in the breakdown of an important licensing arrangement, followed by expensive and difficult litigation.

An exciting drone software collaboration

Plaintiff entered into a software licensing agreement with defendant whereby plaintiff could use defendant’s avionics software for drones. The agreement gave plaintiff a limited exclusive license to certain functionality in the software.

The licensing agreement defined confidential information to include the terms of the agreement. The parties could not use any confidential information other than as required to exercise a right or perform an obligation under the agreement. The agreement also restricted the parties from issuing press releases without the other party’s prior written approval.

Fateful quick email exchange right before vacation

On a Sunday in August 2022, an employee of defendant wrote to defendant’s CEO, letting defendant know that plaintiff was developing a press release. The message concluded with, “Let me know if you have any objections, or if you want to send us a quote or have our PR team make a quote[.]”

Three minutes later the CEO wrote back with the following: “That sounds great. I’m on vacay all week up in the Adirondacks. You guys can make up some quote – I’m sure it will be fine or at least a great start.”

Going public with what should have stayed private

On Wednesday of that week – without further contact with defendant – plaintiff issued a press release discussing the parties’ relationship. The press release stated, in part, that under the terms of the software licensing agreement between the parties, the “software will only be made available to [plaintiff],” and that “[c]ompetitors will have to develop their own software or secure licenses from others with inferior test performance.”

On Friday (probably the last day of the CEO’s “vacay . . . up in the Adirondacks”), defendant sent a letter to plaintiff terminating the agreement. Defendant cited to a provision of the agreement enabling it to terminate immediately upon breach of the agreement’s confidentiality provision. The letter explained that plaintiff had issued the press release without defendant’s consent and that the press release included confidential information.

And then the lawsuit

Plaintiff sued, asserting breach of contract, namely, that defendant improperly declared the agreement terminated, and improperly ceased fulfilling its obligations under the agreement. Defendant moved to dismiss the claims. The court granted the motion.

Court: defendant had the right to terminate

The court found that it was “express and plain” that the definition of confidential information included the terms of the agreement. And when plaintiffs disclosed language from the agreement discussing the exclusive license, plaintiffs breached the agreement, giving defendant a right to terminate, which it exercised.

The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that defendant’s CEO’s Sunday pre-vacation quick response email gave consent for the press release. The court found that rather than serving as approval of the press release that was issued, the consent the CEO provided was for the continued development of a press release and qualified permission to make up a quote for him as part of the development process. Moreover, the harms to defendant arising from plaintiff’s mischaracterization of the parties’ relationship were “precisely the effects that are avoided by requiring ‘prior written consent’ before publication of Confidential Information in a press release.”

Red Cat Holdings, Inc. v. Autonodyne LLC, 2024 WL 342515 (Del. Ch., January 30, 2024)

See also:

January 26, 2024 Contracts, Litigation

Click to Agree: Online clickwrap agreements steered bank lawsuit to arbitration

online terms and conditions

Plaintiffs sued their bank alleging various claims under state law. The bank moved to compel arbitration based on various online clickwrap agreements plaintiffs had entered into.

One of the clickwrap agreements required plaintiffs to scroll through the entire agreement and then click an “Acknowledge” button before continuing to the next step. Citing to the case of Meyer v. Uber, 868 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2017), the court observed that “[c]ourts routinely uphold clickwrap agreements for the principal reason that the user has affirmatively assented to the terms of agreement by clicking ‘I agree.'”

Similarly, for the other relevant agreements, plaintiffs were required to click a box acknowledging that they agreed to those agreements before they could obtain access to digital products. Again, citing to the Meyer case: “A reasonable user would know that by clicking the registration button, he was agreeing to the terms and conditions accessible via the hyperlink, whether he clicked on the hyperlink or not.” By affirmatively clicking the acknowledgement, plaintiffs manifested their assent to the terms of the these agreements.

Curtis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 2024 WL 283474 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2024)

See also:

January 26, 2024 Contracts, Licensing

Disclaimer in software license agreement protected vendor from liability

software license disclaimer

A recent federal court case alleging breach of contract over failure of software to perform highlights the importance of careful drafting and review of disclaimer and other language in technology contracts.

Loss of livelihood

In 2021, a federal court entered an order that permanently barred plaintiff from preparing tax returns for other people. The court’s order apparently addressed past deficiencies in plaintiff’s past tax filings. In 2017, when using TaxWise software, plaintiff did not attach certain required forms to the tax returns.

No doubt this caused extreme hardship for plaintiff, so he sought to recover by blaming the software company – the defendant in this case – for a malfunction in the software that caused the required forms to be omitted.

He sued for breach of contract. Defendant moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion.

The lawsuit was too late

It held that plaintiff’s suit was untimely because the software license agreement contained a provision saying that any such claim had to be commenced within one year from the date such claim or cause of action first arose. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that by bringing suit in January 2023, he was within the one year period because his first payment of a fine to the IRS was due in January 2022. Instead, the court held that the one year period for bringing suit began to run when the alleged breach occurred, i.e., in 2017 when the software allegedly malfunctioned.

Disclaimers knocked out the complaint

The court also held that certain disclaimer language in the software agreement served to defeat plaintiff’s claims as to the software’s performance. The agreement stated that plaintiff “expressly disclaim[ed] any representations or warranties that [his] use of the Products will satisfy any statutory or regulatory obligations, or will assist with, guarantee or otherwise ensure compliance with any applicable laws or regulations.” Moreover, the contract stated that plaintiff bore “THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PRODUCT(S), INCLUDING ELECTRONIC FILING” and so the court found that this eliminated plaintiff’s ability to shift that responsibility to the software provider.

Diedrich v. Wolters Kluwer, 2024 WL 291156 (S.D.N.Y., January 25, 2024)

See also:

IP warranty in the spotlight: Licensor’s failure to assure licensee of rights leads to litigation

intellectual property

In the recent breach of contract case in federal court in New York, we learn about what it takes for a copyright licensee to successfully assert that a warranty from the licensor as to copyright ownership has been breached. Licensee’s unsuccessful efforts to verify the truth of the facts warranted provided a key basis for the lawsuit to move forward.

Blake and Video Elephant entered into an agreement whereby Video Elephant granted a sublicense for Blake to use certain news, entertainment, sports, and other related content. Video Elephant’s business model was to procure such rights from content owners and then grant sublicenses to licensees such as Blake. The agreement contained a provision whereby Video Elephant “warrant[ed] that [the third party owner] is the sole owner of all copyright in [the content] which is granted to [Blake] under this Agreement other than such logos and trademarks and/or title name which are owned by [Blake].”

Assure or get sued

This warranty was crucial for Blake, as it helped Blake be assured that it could use and broadcast the content without the fear of copyright infringement claims from third parties. After Blake repeatedly attempted, without success, to verify whether the third party creator actually owned the intellectual property rights in the content, and after Video Elephant failed to offer adequate assurances that the third party had such rights, Blake filed a counterclaim in the ongoing litigation between the parties for breach of warranty.

Video Elephant moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The court denied the motion.

Due diligence dead end

Blake alleged that it conducted thorough investigations, consulting relevant rights databases and contacting business contacts in the movie industry, seeking to confirm the third party’s ownership of the rights. Despite these efforts, the ownership remained unverified, leading to Blake’s conclusion that the third party might not be the sole owner of the copyright in the licensed content. This situation, according to Blake, rendered it unable to use the content as intended under the agreement, thereby causing substantial damages.

Video Elephant, on the other hand, argued that Blake’s allegations were unfounded, asserting that Blake’s pleading failed to establish a claim for breach of express warranty. It argued that Blake had not demonstrated that the warranty was, in fact, breached.

Belief about doubt

In ruling in Blake’s favor, the court noted that Blake’s assertions “[u]pon information and belief,” that “[the third party] was not in fact the sole owner of all copyright rights in and to the content licensed” and Blake’s unsuccessful investigations into the ownership of the sublicensed content’s rights made the inference of breach plausible.

Moreover, the court found that under New York law, Blake had pled facts showing its reliance on the warranty as the basis for the agreement, since without such third party rights being granted, Blake would have been at risk of infringement liability. The court also found that the lack of assurances – and the resulting inability to use the content because of the resulting infringement risk – supported Blake’s allegations of “substantial damages”.

Video Elephant Ltd. v. Blake Broadcasting LLC, 2024 WL 68525 (S.D.N.Y. January 5, 2024)

See also:

Shake Shack shakes off typeface breach of contract claim

In an ongoing federal case in New York, the well-loved restaurant Shake Shack finds itself embroiled in a copyright and contract dispute with House Industries, a typeface foundry known for developing the Neutraface font. House Industries accused Shake Shack of using the Neutraface font in Shake Shack’s logos and signage without the necessary licensing, claiming that Shake Shack breached Hose Industries’ End User License Agreement (EULA).

The Core of the Dispute

House Industries’ argument centered around its claim that Shake Shack used the proprietary Neutraface font software for commercial purposes, specifically in logos and signage, without obtaining the appropriate permissions. House Industries asserted – in a counterclaim brought against Shake Shack, who had filed a declaratory judgment action against House Industries – that this breached the EULA, which explicitly prohibits use of the Neutraface font software in logos or for the sale of products (unless the user pays an additional license fee).

Shake Shack moved to dismiss the counterclaim. It argued that House Industries failed to provide plausible, non-speculative allegations sufficient to substantiate a breach of contract claim. Moreover, Shake Shack contended that the contract claim was preempted by the Copyright Act. The court agreed with Shake Shack and dismissed House Industries’ claims.

The Court’s Analysis and Ruling

In assessing the breach of contract claim, the court found significant deficiencies in House Industries’ allegations. To establish a breach of contract, House Industries had to demonstrate the existence of an agreement, performance by House Industries, breach by Shake Shack, and resultant damages. House Industries, however, could not substantiate the existence of a contract between itself and Shake Shack. The details of Shake Shack’s assent to the EULA, including who agreed to it and when, were notably absent in House Industries’ claim. The court noted that mere speculation and the inability to identify a specific agreement or its terms were insufficient to sustain a breach of contract claim.

The court also delved into the issue of preemption under the Copyright Act. The central question was whether House Industries’ claim attempted to enforce rights equivalent to those protected under copyright law. The court determined that the Neutraface glyphs, being graphic or pictorial works, fell within the subject matter of copyright. (It is interesting to note that House Industries did not assert that Shake Shack violated the EULA by using the font software without authorization. “House Industries has pleaded no details whatsoever concerning Shake Shack’s alleged use of the proprietary software.”)

Despite House Industries’ assertions to the contrary, the court concluded that the claims were qualitatively similar to a copyright infringement claim. This portion of the analysis was particularly interesting. Copyright law covers pictorial or graphic works – the category in which the glyphs would fall. But type faces are specifically excluded from copyright protection (37 C.F.R. § 202.1(e)). That exclusion did not matter. Even though the glyphs were not subject to copyright protection, they were the type of works copyright protects. Since House Industries’ claim was equivalent to a claim under the Copyright Act concerning these types of works, the court found the breach of contract claim preempted by the Copyright Act.

Implications and Conclusion

This ruling highlights the complexities of intellectual property rights concerning the use of digital assets like fonts in commercial endeavors. It underscores the importance for companies to clearly understand and comply with licensing agreements when using digital creations. This case serves as a reminder of the nuanced legal landscape governing the intersection of technology, art, and commerce.

Shake Shack Enterprises v. Brand Design Company, Inc., 2023 WL 9003713 (S.D.N.Y. December 28, 2023)

See also: