Copyright Roundup

JOHN WIERZBICKI
Law Offices of John R. Wierzbicki

WELCOME TO THE LATEST EDITION of the Copyright Roundup, in which we encapsulate developments in copyright through December, 2025. You are also invited to attend the meetings of the Copyright IG, which occur on the first Wednesday of each month, and at which we discuss these and other topics affecting copyright practice. To join the call, please contact the IG’s Chair, Angus MacDonald (Angus.MacDonald@ucop.edu), or the Vice Chairs: Marcus Peterson (marcus.peterson@oracle.com) orJohn Wierzbicki (jwierzbickilaw@gmail.com).

In Lego A/S v. Zuru Inc. (2d Cir., 2025) 2025 WL 3537350, a toy manufacturer brought an action alleging that a competitor’s toy figurines infringed on the plaintiff’s copyright and a district court preliminarily enjoined the competitor from manufacturing or selling those figurines. When the competitor issued new "second generation" figurines, the district court found that these also violated the injunction and held the competitor in contempt. The competitor then filed a notice of intent to manufacture and sell "third generation" figurines. The district court found that these too were substantially similar to plaintiff’s figurines. The competitor appealed on the ground that by erring as a matter of law in its assessments of similarity and confusion, the district court had modified the preliminary injunction. Held, the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The district court correctly determined that the third-generation figurines fall within the existing injunction without modification. Such a modification of the existing preliminary injunction order is necessary for appellate jurisdiction.

Design Gaps, Inc. v. Distinctive Design & Construction LLC (4th Cir., 2025) 2025 WL 3492373, concerned a dispute by a cabinetmaker against a general contractor. The general contractor had hired the cabinetmaker to design and install cabinets in a home renovation project. But after much delay, the homeowners and the general contractor brought in a third party to complete the cabinets and filed an action in arbitration against the cabinetmaker. The cabinetmaker in return asserted a counterclaim of breach of copyright, among other claims. The arbitrator found no copyright violation and the district court confirmed the award. The cabinetmaker then filed a separate lawsuit for copyright infringement against the third party who completed the cabinets, who was not a party to the arbitration. The district court dismissed the copyright infringement claims because those claims were directly and necessarily resolved in the arbitration. The cabinetmaker appealed. Held, the district court properly applied collateral estoppel to bar the cabinetmaker’s copyright infringement claims. For collateral estoppel to apply does not require mutuality of parties, and the cabinetmaker had sufficient opportunity to litigate the issues in the arbitration as it had full discovery access to defendant in that action. The arbitrator’s finding that defendant did not use the copyrighted drawings in completing the cabinets was fatal to the copyright infringement claims.