Zaccari v. Apprio, Inc.
390 F.Supp.3d 103 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The U.S. Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over copyright infringement claims against government contractors acting with government consent, requiring dismissal of such claims and any dependent civil conspiracy claims from district court. Additionally, claims for breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation must be dismissed if the complaint fails to allege a specific contractual duty breached by the defendant or facts showing the defendant's direct misappropriation.
Facts:
- David Zaccari, while engaged as an independent contractor for Apprio, Inc., developed a software application called Contract Reconciliation Report ('CRR').
- Zaccari demonstrated CRR to senior employees at Apprio and its government client, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).
- A DCMA program lead, Antoine McNeil, demanded a copy of the application, and Apprio's leadership directed Zaccari to provide the source code to McNeil.
- The DCMA team removed Zaccari's name as the author, renamed the program 'ConCISE,' and worked with another government contractor, Discover Technologies LLC, to create a derivative application using CRR's source code.
- DCMA later implemented a version of ConCISE and shared copies of CRR with other Department of Defense agencies.
- Zaccari repeatedly informed Apprio supervisors that he owned CRR and asked Apprio to confront DCMA about the unauthorized use, but Apprio ignored his requests.
- Zaccari subsequently obtained a copyright registration for CRR from the U.S. Copyright Office.
Procedural Posture:
- David Zaccari filed a lawsuit against Apprio, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging four counts including breach of contract and copyright infringement.
- Apprio filed its own suit against Zaccari, and the Court consolidated the cases.
- The United States government filed a statement of interest in the case, granting Apprio its 'authorization and consent' regarding the alleged copyright infringement.
- Apprio filed a motion to dismiss Zaccari's complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the plaintiff allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims for breach of contract, copyright infringement, civil conspiracy, and trade secret misappropriation against his former employer?
Opinions:
Majority - District Court Opinion
No, the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state plausible claims for relief. For the breach of contract claim, the relevant provision in the parties' Agreement imposed a duty on Zaccari to obtain Apprio's consent before incorporating his prior inventions, not a duty on Apprio to provide such consent or protect his intellectual property. The copyright infringement claim must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b) because the U.S. government filed a statement providing its 'authorization and consent' for Apprio's alleged actions, vesting exclusive jurisdiction in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Because civil conspiracy is not an independent cause of action and the underlying tort of copyright infringement has been dismissed, the conspiracy claim must also fail. Finally, the trade secret misappropriation claim fails because the complaint contains no factual allegations that Apprio itself improperly acquired, disclosed, or used the trade secret; the allegations of misappropriation point to actions taken by the government and another contractor, not Apprio.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the high pleading standard established by 'Twombly' and 'Iqbal,' requiring plaintiffs to allege specific facts, not just legal conclusions, for each element of a claim. The decision reinforces that a breach of contract claim must identify a specific contractual obligation that the defendant failed to perform. It also serves as a crucial example of the jurisdictional bar of 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which shields government contractors from copyright infringement suits in district courts when the government provides authorization, thereby channeling such disputes to the Court of Federal Claims. This demonstrates how procedural and jurisdictional rules can be dispositive, even before reaching the merits of a substantive intellectual property dispute.
