Webinar: Ensuring Copyright Protection in a Changing Legal Landscape

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “Ensuring Copyright Protection in a Changing Legal Landscape,” featuring Fitch Even attorneys Alisa C. Simmons and Kerianne A. Strachan.

The event will be on Thursday, May 2, 2019, at 9 am PDT / 10 am MDT / 11 am CDT / 12 noon EDT. It also will be available as an on-demand webinar after presentation.

The recent Supreme Court decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, established that a copyright owner may not file an infringement suit until the U.S. Copyright Office has acted on the copyright owner’s application to register its copyright in the work. Moving quickly to register copyrights is now an important step in safeguarding your rights.

During this webinar, presenters will share insights on the following:
• The practical effects of the Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com decision and other benefits of early registration
• Strategies for protecting copyright rights in work product produced by employees
• Strategies for obtaining and maintaining necessary permissions to use third-party materials in advertisements and promotions
• Recent updates enacted by Congress to benefit music publishers through the Music Modernization Act

Register for the webinar.

Apple, Qualcomm Settle Bitter Dispute Over iPhone Technology

iPhone -SmartphoneApple and Qualcomm have dueled on three continents over the division of billions of dollars of smartphone profits and even how much consumers pay for their phones but as a trial on the issue began Tuesday, the two companies said they had essentially made up.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

The companies, one the maker of iPhones and the other one of the largest providers of mobile chips, said they had agreed to dismiss all litigation between them worldwide. They added that they had reached a six-year agreement for Cupertino’s Apple to pay royalties on Qualcomm’s patents, which was effective as of April 1.

Read the SF Chronicle article.



What Mission Products Holdings v. Tempnology May (Or May Not) Mean For Trademark Licenses In Bankruptcy

In a post for Above the Law, Tom Kulik of Dallas-based Scheef & Stone discusses what happens when a bankruptcy debtor exercises its statutory right to reject a contract.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC to address this question that has plagued the intersection of intellectual property and bankruptcy law for decades.

He writes that the supreme Court’s ruling on the issue “may draw a clear line for trademark licensors and licensees in the event of bankruptcy (a good thing), or leave a blot on the issue by finding that the issue is moot (a bad thing).”

Read the article.



$43M Awarded to Intellectual Ventures I LLC in Patent Infringement Trial

A Texas jury awarded $43 million to Intellectual Ventures I LLC after finding telecom heavyweights T-Mobile and Ericsson Inc. infringed on the company’s patents used for wireless services for the LTE network. The jury awarded $34 million against T-Mobile and $9 million against Ericsson, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing.

The jury also determined T-Mobile and Ericsson failed to provide convincing evidence that Intellectual Ventures’ claims involving the patents were invalid. The case was decided on Feb. 8 following a one-week trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall.

“We are grateful for the jurors’ attention in this case and their decision in favor of our client,” said Johnny Ward of Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC, who represented Intellectual Ventures. “This verdict shows you can’t infringe on another company’s patents and expect to get away with it.”

The patents-in-suit trial included U.S. Patent Nos. 6,628,629, 7,412,517 and RE46,206 owned by Intellectual Ventures for wireless transmissions. Bellevue, Washington-based Intellectual Ventures is a global invention and investment business that creates, incubates, and commercializes impactful inventions.

Also representing Intellectual Ventures were Ward, Smith & Hill partners Claire Abernathy Henry and Andrea Fair, along with co-counsel Martin J. Black and Kevin M. Flannery of Dechert LLP.

The case is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile US, Inc., Ericsson Inc., Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, case number 2:17-cv-577, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.



WWE Hall of Famer Sues ‘Call of Duty’ Publishers, Alleges Copyright Infringement

WWE Hall of Famer Booker T. Huffman has filed a copyright infringement suit against the publishers of the video game franchise “Call of Duty,” claiming its character “Prophet” is too similar to the “G.I. Bro” comic book action hero character he created based on one of his early pro wrestling personas, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing.

The 2018 release Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 prequel depicts the pre-cybernetics Prophet which bears striking similarities to G.I. Bro, a special operations soldier created and copyrighted by Huffman from the Houston suburb of Friendswood.

“When seen side-by-side there can be no question that this character was copied from G.I. Bro. From the hair, body type and clothing, right down to facial expressions, the similarities are too profound to be an accident,” said Micah Dortch of the Dallas office of the Potts Law Firm. Huffman is represented by Dortch and Houston attorney Patrick Zummo with the Law Offices of Patrick Zummo.

Since the 2015 release of the G.I. Bro and the Dragon of Death Preview and G.I. Bro and the Dragon of Death comic books, Huffman has appeared at a number of events dressed as G.I. Bro to promote the titles.

In the first three days of its release by Activision Publishing Inc., Activision Blizzard Inc., and Major League Gaming Corp., Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 sold more than $500 million in physical copies and downloads. Total sales to date are thought to exceed $1 billion.

“Booker T. has devoted a significant amount of time and money creating and organically growing his G.I. Bro character,” said Dortch. “That entrepreneurial investment should not be erased by such a blatant act of copyright infringement by a gaming juggernaut.”

The case is Booker T. Huffman v. Activision Publishing, Inc., Activision Blizzard, Inc., and Major League Gaming Corp., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.



Navigating Open Source Risk with Tools for Usage Evaluation and License Compliance

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “Navigating Open Source Risk with Tools for Usage Evaluation and License Compliance,” featuring Philip Odence of Black Duck On-Demand and Fitch Even partners Amanda Lowerre O’Donnell, Joseph F. Marinelli, and Steven G. Parmelee.

The event will be Thursday, February 28, at 9:00 am PST / 10:00 am MST / 11:00 am CST / 12 noon EST.

Software is increasingly incorporated into products released into the market, and more companies are releasing mobile applications every day. As the percentage of open source content in use rises, the legal and security risks accompanying such use needs to be actively managed. During this webinar, presenters will provide background information and actionable advice that will assist in handling open source.

Among other insights, presenters will discuss the following:

• Assessing license compliance and compatibility
• Leveraging tools to monitor and assess risks associated with software deals and open source software incorporated into a company’s code
• Creating programs and policies to effectively manage a company’s incorporation of open source into its code
• External web service call-out or API identification and management of associated obligations, risks, and privacy concerns

Register for the webinar.

Knowledge Qualifiers in IP Representations and Warranties

In most transactions involving the sale or license of intellectual property, a buyer or licensee will request that a seller or licensor represent and warrant that such intellectual property does not infringe or misappropriate the intellectual property rights of a third party.

In a post on the Morgan Lewis website, Rahul Kapoor and Shokoh H. Yaghoubi explain that this representation and warranty is often heavily negotiated in a license or purchase agreement. That’s because the seller or licensor wants to limit its obligations for breach of this representation to limit its liability under the agreement, whereas the buyer or licensee wants to keep this provision as broad as possible to ensure that it receives appropriate protection from third-party claims for the intellectual property it licenses or buys.

Their article offers some advice on structuring this type of contract clause.

Read the article.



FRAND Licensing: Recent International Developments – Webinar

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “FRAND Licensing: Recent International Developments,” featuring Fitch Even senior licensing specialist and patent analyst Curtis S. Dodd.

The event will be Thursday, Nov. 15, 2018, at 9 am PST / 10 am MST / 11 am CST / 12 noon EST.

Understanding the latest developments in FRAND licensing is essential to developing appropriate strategies for licensing standard essential patents (SEPs), both as licensor and licensee.

During this webinar, presenters will provide an overview of recent developments in FRAND licensing as a process and as a result, including a discussion of the following:
• Guidelines published in Europe, China, and Japan for licensing of SEPs
• Key decisions from the U.S., the UK, and China regarding how to determine FRAND terms and conditions, including
o Unwired Planet v. Huawei (UK)
o TCL v. Ericsson (US)
o Huawei v. Samsung (CN)

In addition, the event will address these topics:
• Who holds the FRAND burden of proof
• What it means to be a willing licensee
• Jurisdiction for deciding FRAND disputes
• The appropriateness of confidentiality agreements

Register foor the webinar.



In a Texas Courtroom, Tech Firm Huawei Stands Accused of ‘Corporate Espionage’ to Aid China

A former employee of Huawei Technologies Co. accuses the company of using a lawsuit against his Silicon Valley startup as part of a strategy to steal intellectual property and help China achieve technological dominance over the U.S. according to a report in The Dallas Morning News.

“Huawei and its FutureWei unit sued Huang and his startup CNEX Labs Inc. last December, accusing Huang of making off with sensitive trade secrets related to technology that uses integrated circuits as memory to store data,” the article reports. “Huang was hired as an engineer by FutureWei in Santa Clara, California, in January 2011 and left two years later to form CNEX, where he’s chief technology officer.”

But Huang responded that he was the victim of the Chinese company trying to take control of his inventions for Solid State Disk Non-Volatile Memory. Huang’s defense raised the corporate espionage allegations filed by other American companies and a congressional report that said use of Huawei equipment “could undermine core U.S. national-security interests.”

Read the Dallas News article.




Copyright or Copycat? Rock Classic ‘Stairway to Heaven’ Case Sent Back to Trial Court

A dispute over the songwriting credit for the iconic “Stairway to Heaven” took a surprising twist last week when a California appellate court reversed a 2016 copyright victory for Led Zeppelin and ordered a new trial, according to a post on the website of Androvett Legal Media & Marketing. The Ninth Circuit ruling means that the estate of Randy Wolfe (aka Randy California) has a second chance to convince a jury that one of classic rock’s most recognizable guitar riffs was based on work by the largely forgotten 1960s-era performer.

In 2016, a Los Angeles jury took just 15 minutes to find that “Stairway to Heaven” was not substantially similar to “Taurus” written by Wolfe’s band Spirit. The Ninth Circuit judges found that the trial judge had failed to advise jurors that while individual elements of a song may not qualify for copyright protection, a combination of sufficiently original elements may qualify.

Copyright lawyer Amanda Greenspon of Dallas-based Munck Wilson Mandala said there’s no clear legal criteria to use in determining what a “combination of sufficiently original elements” is and courts have reached inconsistent conclusions. She said last week’s decision appears to reflect the sentiment behind the 2015 ruling awarding the estate of Marvin Gaye more than $7 million after a jury found that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams had copied portions of Gaye’s “Gotta Give it Up” in their 2013 hit “Blurred Lines.”

“That case has been criticized for allowing the copyright holder to protect a style as opposed to an actual composition,” she said. “That’s not the express precedent from the case which had a number of procedural issues, but it definitely resonates in the decision to remand it back to the trial court and essentially provide jury instructions that certain common elements can be protected under copyright even when they may be standard to a genre.”

Greenspon notes that copyright law offers protections against claims of infringement for certain works in books, plays and films that are common to a genre. “There is no analogous doctrine in music, but we see the same concept play out all the time,” she said. “Songs within a genre of music often share common elements. How musicians handle that is often based on the two songs’ relative commercial success. In some instances, it’s easier to acknowledge credit and not litigate.”



Innovative IP Strategies for AI Development, Monetization & Protection

Artificial Intelligence - AIThe IP for AI Summit, scheduled for Nov. 13-15, 2018, in Washington, DC, aims to uncover the latest secrets and explore best practices to harness and deploy valuable Artificial Intelligence IP assets successfully and effectively.

Organizers are now accepting speaker proposals for the forum. Anyone with a unique story may submit the title of the proposed talk with a brief description of the session objectives at tiffany@strategicsolutionsnet.com.

The 2018 Forum features the following Key Themes:

-What are the Most Vital Elements to Building a Strong Artificial Intelligence IP Portfolio?

-How to Facilitate and Implement AI Innovation within your Organization

-Can’t We All Just Get Along? Bridging the Gap Between your Inventors and IP Team

-Patent Eligibility According to the Experts Post-ALICE

-Building the most effective defense for your Portfolio

-De-mystifying Valuable Tactics to Monetize your IP Portfolio

-Successful Methods to Utilize Trade Secrets as a Protection Mechanism to your Portfolio

-How to Perfectly Execute an Effective and Lucrative In-Licensing Acquisition

-Inventorship vs. Ownership: Is a Machine Considered an Owner?

-Best practices explained to pass your patent under first-to-file AIA law changes

-What are the Best Practices to managing Partnerships, In-licensing of AI Expertise and Maximizing your Acquisition Potential

-How to Advance your Career utilizing AI Innovations in the Legal Industry

The event attracts a cross-section of innovators, business leaders and in-house counsel, according to organizers.

Register for the event or get details.



Contractual Allocation of Intellectual Property Ownership

Intellectual property IPMorgan, Lewis & Bockius lawyers, writing in the firm’s Tech & Sourcing blog, discuss the typical ways that parties can use contracts to determine intellectual property ownership.

“In the context of negotiating an agreement where intellectual property rights are addressed, most parties will readily agree that those intellectual property rights owned by a party before the effective date of the agreement or developed outside of the agreement (commonly referred to as background rights) should be owned by that party,” write Vito Petretti and Cindy L. Dole.

Their article discusses the common allocations of foreground IP rights.

Read the article.

U.S. Intellectual Property Ownership – Default Laws

Morgan Lewis authors, writing in the firm’s Tech & Sourcing blog, discuss how patent, copyright, and trade secret ownership works in the United States if there is no agreement in place to allocate these rights.

“Protecting intellectual property rights is a critical component to the success of a technology company,” according to Vito Petretti and Cindy L. Dole. “In order for a tech company to determine how to protect its intellectual property, the company should understand how the key intellectual property rights work.”

Their article covers patents, copyrights and trade secrets.

Read the article.




Advanced Obviousness Analysis: Understanding the Reasonable Expectation of Success Doctrine

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “Advanced Obviousness Analysis: Understanding the Reasonable Expectation of Success Doctrine,” featuring Fitch Even attorneys David A. Gosse and Margaret “Peggy” Wojkowski.

The event will be on Thursday, May 31, 2018, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12 noon EDT.

When an invention combines previously known features, non-obviousness turns on whether the person having ordinary skill in the art would have a reason to make the combination. This analysis requires considering whether the ordinarily skilled person would have a reasonable expectation of success in combining the known features, the firm said in a release.

Recent Federal Circuit cases provide guidance in successfully arguing for patentability under this doctrine and establish that it applies even when obviousness is asserted based on a single reference. Successfully arguing obviousness in patent prosecution, post-issuance proceedings, and district court litigation depends on this analysis with increasing frequency.

In addition to discussing applicable cases, the event will explore these issues:
• When do circumstances favor arguing reasonable expectation of success at the PTAB and during patent examination?
• What types of evidence are helpful or needed to support the arguments?
• How can patents be drafted to establish that skilled persons would not have expected success by modifying the known art?

Register for the webinar.


Owning the Patent Isn’t Always Enough for Standing

Intellectual property IPIn a recent Initial Determination, an administrative law judge ruled that a patent owner did not have standing to sue without joining a third party to which certain rights had been transferred, reports Jones Day.

Daniel Kazhdan and Blaney Harper discuss Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software, and Products Containing the Same.

Andrea Electronics Corp filed a complaint asserting that a number of companies, including Apple Inc., infringed its patents by importing certain products. It was undisputed that Andrea held formal title of the patents, but Apple argued that Andrea did not hold “all substantial rights in the patents-in-suit,” as required by Diamond Coating Technologies, LLC v. Hyundai Motor America.

Read the article.




Avoiding Prosecution Churn: When Ex Parte PTAB Appeals Make Dollars and Sense

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “Avoiding Prosecution Churn: When Ex Parte PTAB Appeals Make Dollars and Sense,” featuring Fitch Even partner Thomas F. Lebens and Anticipat founder Trent Ostler.

The event will be Wednesday, March 21, 2018 , at 9 am PDT / 10 am MDT / 11 am CDT / 12 noon EDT.

During the process of acquiring patent rights through the patent application process, applicants sometimes wish to seek review of rejections by an examiner. The formal mechanism for achieving this review is an ex parte appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB). Some patent practitioners avoid the ex parte review process, viewing it as lengthy and expensive. But, data and experiences recently compiled by an AIPLA subcommittee suggest that this conventional thinking may be incorrect. It turns out that pursuing an appeal can be a more attractive option than other patent prosecution procedures.

During this webinar, presenters will explore how the AIPLA findings may provide guidance on
• When to file ex parte PTAB appeals
• How often to file these appeals
• Which issues to choose to appeal

Additional topics will include
• USPTO incentives
• Working with the examiner
• Patent term adjustment
• Pre-appeal brief reviews
• Other relevant statistics

Register for the webinar.



Not So Common Sense? Reliance on Common Sense to Establish Obviousness

A recent written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board sheds light on how the PTAB may treat common sense as used in obviousness arguments, reports Jones Day in its PTAB Litigation Blog.

Albert Liou discusses the recent case of Kranos Corporation v. Riddell, Inc., which involves the claimed invention of a sports helmet with a quick release connector for the faceguard. An important claim element was the “releasable coupler mechanism.”

“The Kranos decision teaches Petitioners to avoid relying only upon ‘common sense’ as a reason for combining references.” Liou writes. “Rather, an effective Petition should lead the PTAB to conclude that ‘common sense’ supports obviousness, after presenting the PTAB with a persuasive showing of why the elements or structure of one reference should be combined with those of another.”

Read the article.




Surviving the NDA Nightmare: New Webinar

Confidential - nondisclosureContractWorks will present a complimentary webinar, “Surviving the NDA Nightmare: Managing Legal & Logistical Problems,” on Thursday, February 22, 2018, at 11 AM PST.

The non-disclosure agreement is among the most crucial and the riskiest of all agreements handled by general counsel and their teams, ContractWorks says on its website. Webinar presenters will discuss how to overcome common challenges when working with NDAs, minimize legal and logistical problems associated with them and save on overall time spent managing the NDA process.

The webinar will cover:

  • How to identify common and unforeseen risks in your NDAs
  • How to mitigate the risks your NDAs carry
  • How to utilize software to improve your process, save time, and enhance security

Anyone who is unable to participate in the live webinar may register anyway, and receive a recording after the webinar.

Register for the webinar.



Fundamentals of Software Audit Data Collection – Hardware Inventory

Scott & Scott LLP

Touchscreen tech computer softwareIn order to effectively manage their software usage and to mitigate compliance exposure, companies need to know how to gather and analyze information regarding their product usage. While some software products may have unique data-collection requirements that ordinarily would not be applicable for other products, usage levels for many products can be measured using a common set of reports that companies can prepare themselves to gather. The purpose of this and other posts in this series of blog entries is to give companies insight regarding how to gather those datasets and why that information is relevant to their licensing obligations.

The backbone of deployment data for many products is a list of all devices in an IT environment capable of running or interacting with a licensed software product. This inventory should include all physical and virtual workstations and servers. In many cases, it also should include devices like thin clients that may not be capable of running installed copies of software, but that can be used to access software deployed in server environments. The list also should include information regarding the make and model of each device as well as the make, model and quantity of processors and processor cores for physical servers and virtualization hosts. (Note that information regarding virtualization environments will be discussed in a separate entry in this series.) Finally, in order to validate the completeness of the principal hardware inventory, it almost always is a good idea to obtain a secondary inventory from a source like Active Directory or an antivirus solution.


Most companies use automated, software-based inventory tools in order to gather information regarding the hardware and software present in their IT environments. Using tools is not absolutely necessary – especially in very small environments – where a physical machine count, purchasing records, and change logs may provide sufficient information to allow a company to know what it owns. However, tool-based inventories almost always represent a best practice, since manually maintained reports should be audited against other data sources. Furthermore, it is typically much less practical to maintain a software inventory manually, and the tools used to gather software-installation data for an environment typically can provide all the information needed for a hardware inventory.

The tools used will vary depending on the types of software being run in the environment and on the way that the IT resources are configured. For example, an “agentless” tool – which consists of a centralized installation that uses communication protocols to remotely gather information from other machines on a network – may be the best choice for companies that have relatively simple networks with limited numbers of domain-administrator-level credentials that can be used to access all connected devices. Agentless tools usually are less expensive and easier to deploy than other kinds of solutions. Microsoft’s MAP Toolkit is a free, agentless tool and is one of the most widely used solutions for gathering information regarding Windows-based environments. Spiceworks is another, popular, agentless tool.

However, in some cases, an agentless tool may be a bad fit. Some environments may be based on global deployments residing within multiple different domains that do not share a common set of administrative credentials. Alternatively, it may be necessary for an environment to be highly segmented for security reasons, with that segmentation effectively preventing an agentless tool from gathering information from resources in other segments. In these circumstances, an “agent-based” tool – consisting of a centralized management console and multiple, small “agent” installations on each computer deployed within an environment – may be a better fit. In that scenario, the agents typically do a more thorough job of gathering information regarding the machines where they are installed and often can be used to remotely manage those machines in addition to simply gathering data. Furthermore, agent-based tools can take advantage of encryption technology and a wider variety of communication protocols to avoid the kinds of network-configuration obstacles that may prevent agentless tools from providing meaningful information. Unfortunately, all of that functionality comes at a cost, as agent-based tools often are much more expensive and much more difficult to successfully install and configure. Ivanti IT Asset Management (formerly known as LANDESK) is a very popular agent-based tool. IBM’s License Metric Tool is another well-known (perhaps infamous) agent-based tool that may be required for companies using certain kinds of IBM software in certain kinds of environments.

Some smaller companies may not want to invest the capital or resources to deploy an IT asset discovery tool but still may not want to rely on manually-maintained inventories. In those circumstances, it may be feasible to gather information using scripts or system queries that provide the same kind of information as automated tools, but via an ad hoc process. In Windows-based environments, PowerShell queries can deliver a wealth of information regarding machines residing with the same Active Directory architecture and also regarding the users accessing those machines. System queries also play an important role in environments running Oracle software. Oracle’s License Management Services (LMS) auditors have identified a number of “verified” third-party tools capable of gathering information useful for managing Oracle license compliance. However, the most common way to gather Oracle usage data (and the way preferred by Oracle LMS) is via a set of proprietary scripts and queries that are made available during an Oracle audit. Unfortunately, Oracle LMS does not make the full set of tools publicly available, though Oracle does offer a free Database Option and Management Pack Usage script here.

In addition to the primary discovery tool, companies also should identify a secondary source of information regarding the devices running within their networks. The purpose of this kind of secondary source is to provide a means to measure the completeness of the primary inventory. If there are machines identified in the secondary inventory that are not being captured by the primary inventory tool, then a company knows either that the secondary inventory is over-inclusive and needs to be cleaned up or (more critically) that the company needs to continue deploying or configuring the primary tool to capture all of the company’s computers. Given the limited purpose of the secondary inventory, it may consist of reporting out of a variety of different tools or systems and really needs to consist only of a list of machines and (preferably) the operating systems running on those machines. There are a number of Active Directory queries that can be used in order to generate such a list. Other possible sources of information are lists of machines managed by an anti-virus solution or lists of machines identified within procurement or change-management systems.

Finding the right discovery tool for an IT environment can be a time-consuming and even expensive undertaking, but it is an important one. Most companies need to have a software-based tool for gathering the information required to maintain compliance with their license agreements. However, it also is important to keep in mind the fact that no tool is a silver bullet for compliance. All tools must be periodically tested on a regular basis to ensure that they are working properly. Furthermore, while many tools offer license-management functions, those functions face a dynamic obstacle in the form of software publishers’ ever-evolving license metrics and rules. In order to ensure compliance, it always is necessary to reconcile inventory data against the most current iteration of those rules, and that analysis may need to be a manual one.



Spotify Hit With $1.6B Copyright Suit Over Tom Petty, Neil Young Songs

Tom Petty
Image by musicentropy

A music publishing company has filed a lawsuit in California federal court that alleges that Spotify is using tens of thousands of popular songs without a license and compensation, reports Billboard.

Reporter Eriq Gardner writes that Wixen Music Publishing is seeking damages worth at least $1.6 billion plus injunctive relief.

The report says Wixen administers song compositions by Tom Petty, Zach De La Rocha and Tom Morello of Rage Against the Machine, The Black Keys’ Dan Auerbach, Steely Dan’s Donald Fagen, Weezer’s Rivers Cuomo, David Cassidy, Neil Young, Sonic Youth’s Kim Gordon, Stevie Nicks, and many others.

During 2017, Spotify was hit by lawsuits from some other songwriters.

Read the Billboard article.