JustMed, Inc. v. Byce
600 F.3d 1118 (2010)
Rule of Law:
To determine whether a creator is an employee under the Copyright Act's 'work for hire' doctrine, courts apply the common law of agency by weighing multiple factors with no single factor being dispositive, giving consideration to the context and informalities of a start-up business environment.
Facts:
- Joel Just and Michael Byce, brothers-in-law, co-invented a digital audio larynx and received a patent in 1998.
- In 2003, Joel and Ann Just formed JustMed, Inc. to develop the product; Byce invested $25,000 and joined the company's board of directors.
- In the summer of 2004, Byce agreed to take over source code development for JustMed's product from a prior employee, Jerome Liebler.
- JustMed compensated Byce with what was previously Liebler's salary: $90,000 per year, paid monthly in the form of company stock.
- Byce worked from his home in Idaho using his own computer and set his own hours, though JustMed provided necessary materials and the original code.
- Byce held titles such as 'Director of Engineering,' had a company business card, and performed other tasks for JustMed, including updating the website and attending conferences.
- In May 2005, due to financial strain, Byce requested cash payments; JustMed agreed to a half-cash, half-stock salary, and Byce completed a W-4 tax form.
- Unhappy with his ownership stake in the company, Byce changed the copyright notice on the source code to his own name and then deleted all copies of the code from JustMed's computers.
Procedural Posture:
- JustMed, Inc. sued Michael Byce in Idaho state court, alleging state law claims including trade secret misappropriation.
- Byce removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, citing federal question jurisdiction under the Copyright Act.
- The district court denied JustMed's motion to remand the case to state court.
- Byce filed a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that he was the sole author and owner of the software copyright.
- Following a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for JustMed, finding Byce was an employee, the software was a work made for hire, and Byce was liable for misappropriation of a trade secret.
- Byce, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with JustMed, Inc. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a software developer qualify as an employee under the Copyright Act's 'work for hire' doctrine when the hiring start-up company does not provide benefits, withhold taxes, or have a formal written employment agreement, but does pay a regular salary in stock and integrates the developer's work into its core business?
Opinions:
Majority - Fletcher, J.
Yes, the developer qualifies as an employee, and the source code is a work made for hire owned by the company. The court applies the multi-factor common law agency test from Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid. No single factor is decisive, and they must be weighed in the context of the business. Factors supporting employee status—such as the work being integral to JustMed’s regular business, the replacement of another employee, the payment of a regular salary, and the contemplated indefinite duration of the relationship—outweigh factors suggesting independent contractor status. The court gives less weight to the company's informalities, like the lack of benefits and formal tax withholding, attributing them to the nature of a tech start-up rather than a deliberate decision to hire a contractor. The court also reverses the trial court's finding of trade secret misappropriation, holding that Byce's actions of deleting the code and asserting ownership constituted conversion, not the 'use' or 'disclosure' required for a misappropriation claim, as he did not exploit the secret for a competitive advantage.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the application of the 'work for hire' doctrine to the modern, often informal, context of tech start-ups. It establishes that the substance of the working relationship, particularly the centrality of the work to the company's business and the expectation of an ongoing role, can outweigh the absence of traditional employment formalities like tax withholding and benefits. This precedent protects start-ups by affirming their ownership of core intellectual property created by key personnel, even when the company's internal operations are not yet fully formalized. It signals to courts that they should look past surface-level indicia of an independent contractor relationship when the reality of the situation points toward employment.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: JustMed, Inc. v. Byce (2010)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"