This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Communications Decency Act

Enigma Software Group USA LLC v. Malwarebytes Inc.

Published: Dec. 1, 2017 | Result Date: Nov. 7, 2017 |

Case number: 5:17-cv-02915-EJD Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

Edward J. Davila

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Eric A. Prager
(K&L Gates LLP )

Theodore J. Angelis
(Preston Gates & Ellis)

Eric Randolph Ian Cottle
(K&L Gates LLP )

Christopher M. Verdini
(K and L Gates LLP )

Anna Shabalov
(K and L Gates LLP )

Terry Budd
(Budd Law PLLC )

Edward P. Sangster
(K&L Gates LLP )


Defendant

Guinevere L. Jobson
(Fenwick & West LLP )

Liwen A. Mah
(Fenwick & West LLP )

Sapna Mehta
(Fenwick & West LLP )

Tyler G. Newby
(Fenwick & West LLP)

Bradley T. Meissner
(Fenwick and West LLP )


Facts

Both Enigma Software Group USA LLC and Malwarebytes Inc. were providers of protection against harmful internet computer software.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Malwarebytes software began blocking Enigma's software for its users, even though, as Enigma asserted, the software was not harmful to its user's computers. Plaintiff claimed Malwarebytes violated the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act. Malwarebytes' actions also comprised tortious interference with contractual relations and business relations. Plaintiff argued that Immunity under the Communications Decency Act did not apply because Malwarebytes did not act in good faith, and that the underlying software did not apply to the types of materials justifying immunity.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that the Communications Decency Act barred all of Enigma's claims.

Result

The court found in favor of the defense.


#128641

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390