CopyPublished | District Court, M.D. Florida | 2013 WL 5353287, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136618
...DISCUSSION BP makes several alternate arguments as to why summary judgment should be entered in its favor on all of Plaintiffs breach of implied-in-fact contract and unjust enrichment claims, including: (1) federal patent law bars Plaintiffs claims, (2) Florida Statute § 501.972 bars Plaintiffs claims, and (3) Plaintiffs ideas were not used, novel, or concrete....
...ecific terms of the alleged contract. In his response opposing summary judgment, Plaintiff disagrees with all of BP’s arguments. However, the Court need not address all of BP’s arguments because the determination of two — that Florida Statutes § 501.972 applies, and that BP never used Plaintiffs ideas — provide alternate bases for granting summary judgment in favor of BP on counts I through VI. A. Florida Statute § 501.972 BP argues that Plaintiffs breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims are barred by Section 501.972 of the Florida Statutes, which is titled “Actions based upon use of a creation that is not protected under federal copyright law,” and states: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the use of an idea, procedure, process, syste...
...em governing such use. (2) Subsection (1) does not affect or limit: (a) Any cause of action based in copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secret; or (b) Any defense raised in connection with a cause of action described in paragraph (a). Fla. Stat. § 501.972 (2006)....
...indicating the existence of a contract governing the use of Plaintiffs idea submissions. In response, Plaintiff asserts that BP’s argument is wrong because “[a] written contract is not required for” his claims. The Florida Legislature enacted Section 501.972, effective July 1, 2006....
...age, and the Court’s own research has found none. Given that the plain language of the statute requires understanding what would be protected under federal copyright law, the Court reviews relevant sections of the Copyright Act before interpreting Section 501.972 to determine how and whether it applies here....
...xcluded from copyright protection); id. at 1294 (quoting Nimmer on Copyright, §
1.01[B][2][c] at 1-58 (2004) (“the Copyright Act does not extend protection to ideas as distinguished from their expression”) (quotation marks omitted)). Turning to Section
501.972(1), its language — regarding “use of an idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, discovery, thought,” id....
...other creation that is not a work of authorship protected under federal copyright law,” id. (emphasis added) — likewise shows that it applies to items that are not protected under Section 102(a). Here, Plaintiffs ideas are not works of authorship and are expressly excluded from protection under the Copyright Act; Section 501.972 therefore applies to BP’s use of Plaintiffs idea. Further, Plaintiff has not asserted any cause of action that is excepted from the reach of Section 501.972(1). His claims are neither “cause[s] of actions based in copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secret” nor “defense[s] raised in connection with” those causes of action. Fla. Stat. § 501.972 (2)....
...Thus, BP’s use of Plaintiffs ideas cannot support his breach of implied-in-fact contract claims or his unjust enrichment claims, unless Plaintiff and BP “have executed a writing sufficient to indicate that a contract has been made between them governing such use.” Fla. Stat. § 501.972 (1)....
...in writing.” Fla. Stat. *1234 §
725.01 ; H.P.B.C., Inc. v. Nor-Tech Powerboats, Inc.,
946 So.2d 1108, 1110 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2006) (applying statute of frauds and holding that plaintiffs breach of oral contract claim failed as a matter of law). Here, Section
501.972 limits causes of actions based on the use of an idea or other creation that is not a work of authorship protected under federal copyright law. As the Florida Senate’s Staff Analysis recognized, by requiring “that there be a writing to reflect an agreement of use between parties for a person to have a cause of action for the unauthorized use of a noncopyright-protected creation,” Section
501.972 “would limit one’s ability to prove a breach of implied contract by a party who has not administered a written agreement when sharing ideas with others.” Fla....
...Based on the record before the Court, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether BP and Plaintiff executed any writing sufficient to indicate that they made a contract governing BP’s alleged use of Plaintiffs ideas. Under Section 501.972, Plaintiffs breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims based on BP’s alleged use of Plaintiffs ideas are barred as a matter of Florida law. Accordingly, BP’s motion for summary judgment is granted on all counts. B. Breach of Implied-In-Fact Contract Claims (Counts I-III) and Unjust Enrichment Claims (Counts IV-VI) However, even if Section 501.972 does not apply to bar Plaintiffs claims, BP would still be entitled to summary judgment on all counts, because the record shows no genuine issue of material fact as to whether BP used Plaintiffs ideas....
