Honeywell International Incorporated v. Western Support Group Incorporated et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 34 Western Support's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 4/4/13.(TLJ)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Western Support Group, Inc. and Douglas)
)
C. Harmon and Cynthia A. Harmon,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Honeywell International, Inc.,

No. CV 12-00645-PHX-JAT
ORDER

16

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants Western Support Group, Inc.,

17

Douglas C. Harmon, and Cynthia A. Harmon’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34).

18

The Court now rules on this motion for summary judgment.

19

I.

BACKGROUND

20

In the summary judgment context, the Court construes all disputed facts in the light

21

most favorable to the non-moving party. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.

22

2004).

23

Plaintiff Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) manufactures and sells various

24

products used in the aerospace industry. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 1; Doc. 35 at ¶ 1). Among these

25

products are auxiliary power units (“APUs”), which the FAA defines as “gas turbine engines

26

intended to provide auxiliary electrical, pneumatic, or mechanical power to support the

27

airplane systems operations.” (Doc. 37, Ex. B, TSO-C77b at 1). Honeywell creates repair

28

and maintenance manuals for the APUs it manufactures and sells. (Doc. 35 at ¶ 2; Doc. 37

1

at ¶ 18). One such manual is the Honeywell Pneumatic and Shaft Power Gas Turbine Engine

2

Inspection/Repair Manual 131-9 Series (the “131-9A Manual”). (Doc. 35, Ex. A). The 131-

3

9A Manual is over 2,000 pages long and contains technical details on the APU and its

4

components and various testing and repair procedures, including photographs, drawings,

5

charts, and schematics that illustrate the text. (Doc. 35, Ex. A; Doc. 37 at ¶ 19; see Doc. 35

6

at ¶¶ 8-11).

7

Honeywell does not sell copies of its manuals. (Doc. 37 at ¶ 20). Instead, Honeywell

8

licenses its manuals to the owners of aircraft and to certain repair and maintenance facilities

9

(“MRO”s), but retains ownership. (Id.; see Doc. 34 at 4). Honeywell’s manuals contain a

10

copyright notice. (Doc. 35, Ex. A at CL000007; Doc. 37 at ¶ 20). Honeywell’s manuals also

11

contain language that Honeywell describes as placing “some restrictions on the ability of the

12

aircraft owner and the MRO to distribute licensed manuals to persons or entities not

13

authorized by Honeywell to receive them,” but allowing use of the manuals “as may be

14

necessary to comply with FAA regulations.” (Doc. 37 at ¶ 22; see Doc. 35, Ex. A at

15

CL000006-7).

16

Defendants Western Support Group, Inc., Douglas C. Harmon, and Cynthia A.

17

Harmon (collectively, “Western Support”) are in the business of “obtaining and distributing

18

aircraft maintenance manuals for a service fee.” (Doc. 35, Ex. B at 1). In 2001, Honeywell

19

discovered that Western Support was copying and distributing various Honeywell manuals

20

and initiated a copyright infringement suit. (Doc. 37 at ¶ 23). In 2002, the parties entered

21

into a Settlement Agreement wherein Western Support “agree[d] that they shall not copy,

22

sell, offer for sale, or distribute” Honeywell’s manuals without written authorization from

23

Honeywell. (Doc. 1, Ex. A at 2; see Doc. 37 at ¶ 24).

24

In 2010, Honeywell claims that it discovered that Western Support had copied and

25

sold a number of 131-9A Manuals without Honeywell’s authorization. (Doc 1. at ¶¶ 8, 10;

26

Doc. 35 at ¶ 5; Doc. 37 at ¶ 25). Honeywell claims that it owns the 131-9A Manual and

27

holds a valid copyright. (Doc. 1 at ¶ 9; Doc. 35 at ¶ 6; see Doc. 37 at ¶¶ 19-20). On

28

November 29, 2011, Honeywell obtained a copyright registration for the 131-9A Manual.
-2-

1

(Doc. 1, Ex. B; see Doc. 35 at ¶ 6).

2

In 2012, Honeywell filed its initial Complaint (Doc. 1) against Western Support

3

claiming that Western Support’s copying and distribution of the 131-9A Manual (and

4

possibly other yet-to-be identified manuals) infringes Honeywell’s copyright and breaches

5

the parties’ 2002 Settlement Agreement. (Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 11-18). Western Support denies

6

copying and distributing the 131-9A Manual (Doc. 17 at ¶¶ 8, 10, 12) and claims that, in any

7

event, Honeywell does not hold a valid copyright for the manual (Doc. 34 at 2). Western

8

Support filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 34), Honeywell has

9

responded (Doc. 36), and Western Support has replied (Doc. 39). The Court now rules on

10

the motion.

11

II.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

12

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any

13

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

14

Civ. P. 56(a). A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support

15

that assertion by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record,” including depositions,

16

affidavits, interrogatory answers or other materials, or by “showing that the materials cited

17

do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot

18

produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Thus, summary

19

judgment is mandated “against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the

20

existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the

21

burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986).

22

Initially, the movant bears the burden of pointing out to the Court the basis for the

23

motion and the elements of the causes of action upon which the non-movant will be unable

24

to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 323. The burden then shifts to the

25

non-movant to establish the existence of a disputed material fact. Id. The non-movant “must

26

do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts” by

27

“com [ing] forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’ ”

28

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586–87 (1986) (quoting
-3-

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) (1963) (amended 2010)). A dispute about a fact is “genuine” if the

2

evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.

3

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The non-movant’s bare

4

assertions, standing alone, are insufficient to create a material issue of fact and defeat a

5

motion for summary judgment. Id. at 247–48. However, in the summary judgment context,

6

the Court construes all disputed facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

7

Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir. 2004).

8

III.

DISCUSSION

9

For Honeywell to establish copyright infringement, it must prove: “(1) ownership of

10

a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”

11

Feist Publ’n, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). The Court reaches

12

the issue of infringement only if Honeywell demonstrates that the 131-9A Manual is entitled

13

to copyright protection.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

A.

The Validity of Honeywell’s Copyright of the 131-9A Manual is in
Genuine Dispute

With respect to the ownership of a valid copyright, Honeywell undisputedly registered
the copyright for the 131-9A Manual with the United States Copyright Office on November
29, 2011. Honeywell’s certificate of registration entitles it to a “rebuttable presumption of
originality” for the 131-9A Manual. Ets–Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 225 F.3d 1068, 1075
(9th Cir. 2000) (Ets-Hokin I) (internal citations omitted); see 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (registration
“shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright”). To overcome the
presumption of validity, Western Support must show why the 131-9A Manual is not
copyrightable. Ets-Hokin I, 225 F.3d at 1076.
Western Support argues that the 131-9A Manual is not entitled to copyright protection
because it lacks the requisite originality. (Doc. 34 at 2). Specifically, Western Support first
argues that, as a matter of law, “aircraft maintenance manuals are not protected by copyright
law.” (Doc. 34 at 5). Second, in its Reply, Western Support argues that the photographs,
diagrams, and facts and procedures within the 131-9A Manual lack sufficient originality to

28
-4-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

justify copyright protection. (Doc. 39 at 2-8).
1.

As a Matter of Law, Aircraft Maintenance Manuals Can Possess
Sufficient Originality to Allow Copyright Protection

Western Support offers a three-pronged rationale for its argument that, as a matter of
law, aircraft maintenance manuals in general, and the 131-9A Manual, in particular, are not
entitled to copyright protection: (1) manuals describe “procedures for checking and repairing
aircraft parts,” which cannot be copyrighted under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); (2) the “identification
of the aircraft parts to which each check and repair procedure applies are simply facts”; and
(3) manuals are not “original” works within the meaning of the Copyright Act because the
publication, distribution, and “format and content of the manuals” is dictated by federal
regulations. (Doc. 34 at 1-2).
With regard to Western Support’s first and second arguments, Western Support is
correct insofar as copyright protections do not extend to “procedures” or facts. Title 17 of
the United States Code governs copyrights and specifies that “[i]n no case does copyright
protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system,
method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is
described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). In Feist,
the United States Supreme Court acknowledged that it is “universally understood” that “there
can be no valid copyright in facts” and explained that “[n]o one may claim originality as to
facts . . . because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship.” 499 U.S. at 344, 347
(internal quotations and citation omitted). Honeywell concedes this point, but argues that
copyright nonetheless protects Honeywell’s particular “expression” of those facts and the
accompanying illustrations and descriptive text because they are original to Honeywell.
(Doc. 36 at 5-6) (emphasis omitted).
Unlike the facts they are composed of, “[f]actual compilations . . . may possess the
requisite originality” because the “compilation author typically chooses which facts to
include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may
be used effectively by readers.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 348. Similarly to the inclusion of facts

28
-5-

1

within an original work, the inclusion of a “procedure” or “process” within an original work

2

does not negate the copyright protection of the original aspects of the work—the copyright

3

protection merely fails to extend to the actual “procedure” or “process.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b);

4

see M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright § 2.03[D] (2012) (“if a given ‘procedure’ is

5

reduced to written form, this will constitute a protectable work of authorship, so as to

6

preclude the unlicensed copying of ‘the expression’ of the procedure, even if the procedure

7

per se constitutes an unprotectable ‘idea’”).

8

Assuming that aircraft maintenance manuals are generally compilations of facts and

9

procedures,1 the dispositive question, then, is whether any portion of an aircraft maintenance

10

manual can ever possess the requisite originality to enjoy copyright protection, no matter

11

how “thin”2 the protection may be. Rephrased in the language of Feist, the Court must

12

decide whether it is possible for the author of an aircraft maintenance manual to creatively

13

express the underlying facts and procedures by exercising discretion in the “choos[ing],”

14

“order[ing],” and/or “arrange[ment]” of the included facts and procedures. See Feist, 499

15

U.S. at 348. To answer this question, Western Support submits its third argument: that FAA

16

regulations “dictate the format and content of aircraft maintenance manuals, so there is

17

nothing original about their creation.” (Doc. 34 at 15).

18

This Court has previously interpreted Feist and found that “[o]riginal, in copyright

19

parlance, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to

20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Western Support argues, and Honeywell has not disputed, that its 131-9A Manual
contains numerous facts and procedures. The Court’s examination of the 131-9A Manual
confirms this assessment.
2

“A thin copyright ‘protects against only virtually identical copying.’” Express, LLC
v. Fetish Group, Inc., 424 F.Supp.2d 1211, 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Satava v. Lowry,
323 F.3d 805, 812 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc., 323 F.3d at 766
(9th Cir. 2003) (Ets-Hokin II) (“When we apply the limiting doctrines, subtracting the
unoriginal elements, Ets Hokin is left with . . . a ‘thin’ copyright, which protects against only
virtually identical copying.”); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1439
(9th Cir. 1994) (“When the range of protectable expression is narrow, the appropriate
standard for illicit copying is virtual identity.”).

28
-6-

1

copied from other works), and that it possess[es] at least some minimal degree of creativity.”

2

B2B CFO Partners, LLC v. Kaufman, 787 F.Supp.2d 1002, 1007 (D. Ariz. 2011) (citing

3

Feist, 499 U.S. at 345 (citing Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990))) (internal

4

quotations omitted). This Court further found that “the requisite level of creativity[] is

5

extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade

6

quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious

7

it might be.” Id. (internal citation and quotations omitted).

8

With this minimal creative burden in mind, the Court must examine whether FAA

9

regulations necessarily preclude originality in compliant aircraft maintenance manuals. Both

10

parties agree that aircraft maintenance manuals must be prepared in accordance with certain

11

federal regulations promulgated by the FAA (the parties disagree, however, on which

12

specific regulations govern the 131-9A Manual). (Doc. 34 at 9-15; Doc. 36 at 8-10; Doc. 39

13

at 9-10). As an example of the control over “format and content” exercised by such

14

regulations, Western Support quotes (Doc. 34 at 11-15) the majority of Appendix A to Part

15

33, a regulation that “specifies requirements for the preparation of Instructions for Continued

16

Airworthiness” of an aircraft engine. FAA Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, 14

17

C.F.R. § 33, App. A (2012). The Court’s review of Appendix A reveals that, with regard to

18

“format,” compliance only requires a manual to “provide for a practical arrangement” and

19

be in a form “appropriate for the quantity of data to be provided”; more specific instructions

20

or a definition of “practical” or “appropriate” are not provided. Id. at A33.2 (emphasis

21

added). Providing significantly greater specificity than the “format” regulations, the several

22

pages of “content” regulations within Appendix A undoubtably reduce the scope for an

23

author’s creative expression. Id. at A33.3. A careful reading of these “content” regulations,

24

however, reveals neither an explication nor an implication that compliance requires the

25

author to cede all creative discretion in choosing, ordering, and/or arranging the included

26

facts and procedures. See, e.g., Id. at A33.3(a)(2) (only requiring a “detailed description of

27

the engine and its components, systems, and installations”) (emphasis added); Id. at

28

A33.3(a)(4) (only requiring “[b]asic control and operating information describing how the
-7-

1

engine” operates) (emphasis added). The Court also notes that the Appendix A “content”

2

regulations do not contain any prescription for or prohibition against the inclusion of

3

diagrams, drawings, or photographs, except, perhaps, an implication that they be

4

“appropriate” (a vague standard which the regulations do not define). See id. at A33.3.

5

In sum, the Court finds that Appendix A, the aircraft-engine-manual regulation that

6

Western Support offers as an example of how the FAA controls the “format” and “content”

7

of aircraft maintenance manuals, does not foreclose the possibility that the author of an

8

aircraft maintenance manual can exercise at least some creative control over the choosing,

9

ordering, and/or arrangement of facts and procedures included in an aircraft maintenance

10

manual.3 Where, like under Appendix A, the author may have at least a “slight amount” of

11

creative control over some portions of an aircraft maintenance manual, the Court cannot find

12

a lack of originality as a matter of law. See B2B, 787 F.Supp.2d at 1007 (citing Feist, 499

13

U.S. at 345).

14

Western Support further argues that FAA regulations mandating the publication and

15

distribution of aircraft maintenance manuals render the manuals unoriginal for the purposes

16

of copyright protection. (Doc. 34 at 7-9; Doc. 39 at 9-10). Relying on dicta from Feist,4

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

In its Motion, Western Support heavily relies upon Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v.
Camp Sys. Int’l, Inc., 428 F.Supp.2d 1369 (S.D. Ga. 2006), as an “expla[nation] why aircraft
maintenance manuals are not protected by copyright law.” (Doc. 34 at 5). Western
Support’s reliance is misplaced, however, because the Georgia district court in Gulfstream
held that defendants had successfully asserted a fair use defense, not that aircraft
maintenance manuals are per se not copyrightable. Id. at 1376, 1380-81. Despite discussing
why FAA manual regulations and the facts and procedures contained within a manual render
“much” of the manual ineligible for copyright protection, the Gulfstream court acknowledged
that portions of the manual may be protected by copyright and expressly avoided deciding
whether or not the entirety of the manual at issue was foreclosed from copyright protection.
Id. at 1375-76.
4

“We note in passing that the selection featured in Rural’s white pages may also fail
the originality requirement for another reason. Feist points out that Rural did not truly
‘select’ to publish the names and telephone numbers of its subscribers; rather, it was required
to do so by the Kansas Corporation Commission as part of its monopoly franchise.
Accordingly, one could plausibly conclude that this selection was dictated by state law, not
-8-

1

Western Support claims that “when law requires that material be published, that material fails

2

the originality required for copyright protection because it is the government, not the author,

3

that controls the content.” (Id. at 7). It is unclear how this argument differs from Western

4

Support’s argument that FAA regulations prescribe the format and content of aircraft

5

maintenance manuals so completely that the author has no room for originality. Moreover,

6

the cases Western Support relies on for support are unavailing because none held that the law

7

requiring the creation of the various written works precluded, as a matter of law, creative

8

expression by the author. See Muncey v. Eyeglass World, LLC., 289 P.3d 1255, 1260 (N.M.

9

App. 2012) (holding that the medical records at issue were solely “facts” because “[t]here

10

is nothing in the record that indicates that any form of expression or creativity was involved

11

in creating the fact-based patient files.”); Mid Am. Title Co. v. Kirk, 59 F.3d 719, 722 (7th

12

Cir. 1995) (“We do not mean to hold that a title commitment can never be copyrightable;

13

rather, we hold that in this case the element of selection was not sufficiently original to merit

14

copyright protection.”); Eng’g Dynamics, Inc. v. Structural Software, Inc., 26 F.3d 1335,

15

1351 (5th Cir. 1994) (reversing the district court’s holding that computer/user interfaces in

16

the forms of input and output formats are per se not copyrightable and remanding to

17

determine if industry standards, as applied here, precluded sufficient originality).

18

Lastly Western Support argues that a recent FAA “policy statement concerning

19

actions taken to ‘inappropriately restrict the availability, distribution, and use of [aircraft

20

maintenance manuals] through restrictive language in the [manual] or through restrictive

21

access or use agreements’ ” renders aircraft maintenance manuals ineligible for copyright

22

protection. (Doc. 34 at 15-16 (quoting Doc. 35, Ex. B-2, FAA Policy Statement at 1)).

23

However, Western Support does not explain—and the Court finds no reason—why this FAA

24

policy statement “intended to help . . . FAA employees . . . [and manufacturers like

25

Honeywell] determine whether their [manual distribution] practices meet the intent of the

26
27

by Rural.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 363.

28
-9-

1

CFR” is in any way relevant to the issue of whether aircraft maintenance manuals are per se

2

not copyrightable.5 (Doc. 35, Ex. B-2, FAA Policy Statement at 1).

3

In sum, Western Support has not demonstrated that aircraft maintenance manuals, in

4

their entirety, necessarily lack even the “slight amount” of creativity sufficient to render

5

certain portions original and engender copyright protection. See B2B, 787 F.Supp.2d at 1007

6

(citing Feist, 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at 1287). Accordingly, as a matter of law, aircraft

7

maintenance manuals can possess sufficient originality to allow copyright protection, thin

8

as it may be.
2.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

There is a Genuine Dispute of Fact Over the Originality of the 1319A Manual

Honeywell argues that its 131-9A Manual meets the low threshold for copyrightability
described above because it contains hundreds of photographs, diagrams, and “expressions”
of facts and procedures. (Doc. 36 at 4-6). Because Honeywell registered the copyright for
the 131-9A Manual with the United States Copyright Office, Honeywell is entitled to a
“rebuttable presumption of originality” for the 131-9A Manual. Ets-Hokin I, 225 F.3d at
1075 (internal citations omitted); see 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (registration “shall constitute prima
facie evidence of the validity of the copyright”). To overcome the presumption of validity,
Western Support must show why the 131-9A Manual is not copyrightable. Ets-Hokin I, 225
F.3d at 1076. Consequently, in its Reply, Western Support argues that the photographs,
diagrams, and facts and procedures within the 131-9A Manual lack sufficient originality to
justify copyright protection. (Doc. 39 at 2-8).
First, with regard to the photographs in the 131-9A Manual, “courts have recognized
repeatedly that the creative decisions involved in producing a photograph may render it
sufficiently original to be copyrightable and ‘have carefully delineated selection of subject,
posture, background, lighting, and perhaps even perspective alone as protectable elements

25
26
27
28

5

At most, the FAA policy statement indicates that a manufacturer may not use
restrictive language in its manuals to prevent an aircraft owner/operator from receiving
maintenance from an FAA approved facility of the owner/operator’s choice. (See Doc. 35,
Ex. B-2, FAA Policy Statement at 3).
- 10 -

1

of a photographer’s work.’” Ets-Hokin I, 225 F.3d at 1077 (quoting Los Angeles News Serv.

2

v. Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 794 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting United States v. Hamilton, 583 F.2d 448,

3

452 (9th Cir. 1978))). Western Support does not challenge specific photographs, but instead

4

argues, generally, that the photographs in the 131-9A Manual are of utilitarian objects and

5

“do not involve the skill of a professional photographer” because they are “plain shots . . .

6

for practical application.” (Doc. 39 at 3). In Ets-Hokin I, however, the court found that

7

“straight on” photographs of a utilitarian object (a vodka bottle) with a plain background and

8

“slight shadows” reflected creative decisions. 225 F.3d at 1077. Here, the Court notes that

9

the verbiage could describe many of the photographs at issue here. (See, e.g., Doc. 35, Ex.

10

A, 131-9A Manual at CL000366-373). Additionally, some of the photographs in the 131-9A

11

Manual are actually a series of photographs of the same object from multiple angles and with

12

the focus on varying parts of the object. (See, e.g., Doc. 35, Ex. A, 131-9A Manual at

13

CL000311-313). Such series of photos imply the potential for creativity because they require

14

the photographer to choose from among many possible angles and portions of the object to

15

zoom-in on. Accordingly, Western Support has not met its burden of demonstrating that, as

16

a matter of law, the photographs within the 131-9A Manual are devoid of originality.

17

Second, with regard to the diagrams in the 131-9A Manual, “diagrams, models, and

18

technical drawings” enjoy copyright protection for their “form[,] but not their mechanical or

19

utilitarian aspects.” 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102(a)(5). Western Support argues that, here, the

20

“merger doctrine bars [the diagrams’] protection because the idea and expression of the

21

diagrams are inseparable, i.e., the diagrams cannot be expressed differently in substance to

22

remain functional.” (Doc. 39 at 4). Western Support, however, has offered no support for

23

its claim that the diagrams in the 131-9A Manual cannot be expressed differently. Moreover,

24

some of the diagrams in the 131-9A Manual are exploded-parts drawings (e.g. Doc. 35, Ex.

25

A, 131-9A Manual at CL000098, 333, 335, 337), which other courts have explicitly found

26

can be expressed in multiple ways. See, e.g. Axxiom Mfg., Inc. v. McCoy Invs., Inc., 846

27

F.Supp.2d 732, 748 (S.D. Tex. 2012) (holding that the merger doctrine did not apply to an

28

exploded-parts diagram because “more than one way exists in which to create an
- 11 -

1

exploded-parts drawing of the” particular object). Western Support’s conclusion that the

2

diagrams “cannot be expressed differently,” therefore, is a question of fact for the jury. See

3

N. Coast Indus. v. Jason Maxwell, Inc., 972 F.2d 1031, 1034-35 (9th Cir. 1992) (declining

4

“to accept the view that, as a matter of law the differences in the placement of geometric

5

shapes should be regarded as trivial,” and holding that the “plaintiff was entitled to have the

6

validity of its copyright determined by a trier-of-fact”). Accordingly, Western Support has

7

not met its burden of demonstrating that, as a matter of law, the diagrams within the 131-9A

8

Manual are devoid of originality.

9

Third, with regard to the facts and procedures in the 131-9A Manual, as discussed

10

above, compilations of facts and procedures can enjoy copyright protection if “possess[ing]

11

at least some minimal degree of creativity.” B2B, 787 F.Supp.2d at 1007 (citing Feist, 499

12

U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. at 1287). Western Support rehashes its arguments that the 131-9A

13

Manual contains only bare facts and procedures, not expressions of facts and procedures.

14

(Doc. 39 at 9). The Court notes that Honeywell argues (Doc. 8-10) that the 131-9A Manual

15

is governed by Technical Standard Order C77b (“TSO-C77b”) (submitted in its entirety as

16

Doc. 37, Ex. B at 6-30), and not Appendix A as Western Support contends. TSO-C77b

17

includes only a single page of ten short paragraphs to explain the required components of an

18

aircraft maintenance manual prepared pursuant to it. Id. at 30. The Court further notes that

19

these requirements contain less specificity and afford more potential discretion to the author

20

than those in Appendix A discussed above.

21

“[t]roubleshooting information describing probable malfunctions, how to recognize those

22

malfunctions, and the remedial action for those malfunctions”). Giving the benefit of the

23

doubt to Honeywell (the non-moving party, as is required on a motion for summary

24

judgment), the Court recognizes that from this single page of FAA mandated instructions,

25

Honeywell produced an approximately 2,000 page manual—a feat which implies at least

26

some minimal level of creative control. Accordingly, Western Support has not met its burden

27

of demonstrating that, as a matter of law, the expression of facts and procedures within the

28

131-9A Manual are devoid of originality.
- 12 -

See, e.g. id. at ¶ 1.4 (only requiring

1

In sum, the presence of photographs, diagrams, and expressions of facts and

2

procedures within the 131-9A Manual give rise to a genuine dispute of fact regarding the

3

originality of the 131-9A Manual. Consequently, whether or not Honeywell possesses a

4

valid copyright on the 131-9A Manual is question of fact for the jury.

5

B.

Western Support’s Alleged Infringement is in Genuine Dispute

6

With respect to whether or not Western Support copied constituent elements of the

7

131-9A Manual that are original (and therefore the subject of a valid copyright), the

8

presumption of validity imparted by registering a copyright does not extend to infringement,

9

the second element of a copyright claim. Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1219 (9th Cir.

10

1996). If ownership of a valid copyright is established, then to avoid summary judgment a

11

plaintiff asserting a claim for copyright infringement need only demonstrate a triable issue

12

of fact as to whether the defendant “copied anything that was original to their work.” Funky

13

Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006)

14

(quoting Feist, 499 U.S. at 361).

15

Here, Honeywell claims that Western Support has copied “the entire” 131-9A Manual,

16

and not merely “only certain pages” from it. (Doc. 36 at 7; see Doc 1. at ¶¶ 8, 10; Doc. 35

17

at ¶ 5; Doc 36 at 5-6; Doc. 37 at ¶ 25). Western Support, however, denies this allegation in

18

its Answer to the Complaint. (Doc. 17 at ¶¶ 8, 10, 12). Nonetheless, in its Motion for

19

Summary Judgment (Doc. 34) and Reply (Doc. 39), Western Support relies exclusively on

20

the argument that, as a matter of law, the 131-9A Manual “is not protected by copyright law.”

21

(Doc. 34 at 9). Accordingly, the Court finds the issue of whether or not Western Support

22

copied the entire 131-9A Manual is an issue of fact in genuine dispute. Critically, if Western

23

Support copied the entire 131-9A Manual, and if any portion of the 131-9A Manual is

24

protected by a valid copyright (which is also in genuine dispute), then Western Support

25

necessarily infringed on a valid copyright held by Honeywell. Therefore, Honeywell has

26

asserted a triable issue of fact as to whether Western Support “copied anything that was

27

original to [its] work.” Funky Films, 462 F.3d at 1076 (internal citation omitted).

28

Accordingly, the Court denies Western Support’s Motion for Summary Judgment with
- 13 -

1

respect to Honeywell’s copyright infringement claim.

2

C.

Honeywell’s Breach of Contract Claim is in Genuine Dispute

3

In addition to its copyright infringement claim, Honeywell’s Complaint (Doc. 1)

4

includes a claim against Western Support for breach of contract arising from a violation of

5

the parties’ 2002 Settlement Agreement (Doc. 1, Ex. A). In a footnote in its Motion for

6

Summary Judgement, Western Support argues that the breach of contract claim “is dependent

7

on Honeywell prevailing on its copyright infringement claim. If Honeywell has no copyright

8

protection in its [131-9A M]anual, the contract claim fails as a matter of law.” (Doc. 34 at

9

2, n.1).6 Without deciding if Western Support’s contention on this point of law is correct,

10

the Court notes that it has not found that Honeywell “has no copyright protection in its [131-

11

9A M]anual.”7 Accordingly, the Court denies Western Support’s Motion for Summary

12

Judgment with respect to Honeywell’s breach of contract claim.

13

IV.

CONCLUSION

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS ORDERED denying Western Support’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.

16
17

34).
DATED this 4th day of April, 2013.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

6

The Court notes that Western Support offers no argument, support, or analysis of its
contention beyond the quoted footnote.
7

27
28

The Court further notes that, regardless of the its findings on the copyright issue,
Western Support’s single, unsupported footnote is insufficient to justify summary judgment
on the breach of contract issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1).
- 14 -