Updates on Three Concluded Cases From the Last Few Years
Ivy Coach, Inc. v. Lehren Education, LLC.
Four years ago, we first published a post about an intriguing case involving two education consulting firms litigating over an online excerpt published on the website of Lehren Education (“Defendant”), which Ivy Coach (“Plaintiff”) alleged had been improperly copied, infringing on its copyrights.
We posted an update on the case in September of 2021. Shortly thereafter, on October 25, 2021, the Plaintiff and Defendant submitted a Stipulation of Dismissal due to a settlement agreement, requesting that the court dismiss the case with prejudice. The court approved the request, and the case was officially dismissed on November 19, 2021.
Williams et al. v. D’Youville College et al.
Another longstanding case is one we reported on in September of 2021. The action involved a group of professors (the “Professors”) suing D’Youville College (“D’Youville”) over the alleged use of copyrighted materials belonging to the Professors. We later reported that the case was dismissed by the judge in favor of D’Youville College, allowing the Professors the opportunity to amend their motion to dismiss if they wished. The Professors filed an Amended Complaint in early 2023, and after motion practice by both parties, the court issued its Decision and Order, once again siding with D’Youville.
In its opinion, the court emphasized that copyright licenses are interpreted according to principles of contract law. The court found that the contract between the Professors and D'Youville included sufficient language to permit the use of the copyrighted material at issue. Specifically, the court stated that “the definition of 'syllabus' encompasses the portion of the Subject Work at issue” (7). The court addressed the Professors' argument that the contract did not explicitly mention the type of work under litigation, clarifying that the language in the contract included a non-exhaustive list, as indicated by words and phrases like “includes” (8).
Based on this reasoning, the court upheld its previous decision, affirming the dismissal of the case in favor of the defendants, and the case was officially closed on October 23, 2024.
Pearson v. Chegg
Another case that reached its conclusion last year was Pearson v. Chegg. On September 27, 2021, we reported on this case, which revolved around Chegg allegedly providing educational practice materials that included answers to textbook questions from Pearson’s copyrighted materials.
Our last update highlighted the flaws identified by the Special Master regarding the lack of evidence for several of Pearson’s allegations and the missing specifics on which derivative works had been infringed.
In response to these concerns, Pearson provided witnesses to address Chegg’s attorneys' questions. After the deposition, however, Chegg filed a Motion to Disqualify Pearson’s witnesses, alleging that they were unable to answer specific questions about the instances of infringement Pearson was claiming, as well as other financial and contractual questions. Pearson countered this motion by stating that it had instructed its witnesses not to answer questions protected by Attorney-Client Privilege.
Deliberating on the matter, the Special Master, acting on behalf of Judge Farbiarz, denied Chegg’s Motion to Compel Pearson to provide a new witness. The Special Master concluded that the witness provided by Pearson had testified to the best of her knowledge and that her refusal to answer certain questions was indeed justified under Attorney-Client Privilege.
On October 23, 2024, both parties petitioned the court to increase the allowed page limits for their summary judgment briefs. The court denied the request and directed the parties to narrow the areas of dispute in their briefings by October 31. Given the tight deadline, Pearson and Chegg jointly requested an extension to December 19, 2024, citing their ongoing settlement discussions.
On December 19, 2024, Pearson’s attorneys submitted a letter to the court, notifying it that the parties had successfully reached a settlement and requesting that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The court officially closed the case the following day, bringing an end to more than three years of litigation.