Connection lost
Server error
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A garage door opener manufacturer sued a competitor making universal remotes, claiming the remote illegally circumvented its copyrighted software under the DMCA. The court found no violation because the remote only enabled authorized, non-infringing uses by consumers who owned the original product.
Legal Significance: This case established that the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provisions do not prohibit devices that enable only legitimate, non-infringing uses of copyrighted works. A plaintiff must demonstrate a nexus between the alleged circumvention and the protection of a right secured by the Copyright Act.
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The Chamberlain Group, Inc. manufactures garage door openers (GDOs) that use a copyrighted “rolling code” software program. This program acts as a technological measure (TM) to control access to the GDO’s operating software, preventing unauthorized opening. Chamberlain did not place explicit restrictions on its customers’ use of third-party transmitters. Skylink Technologies, Inc. manufactured a universal transmitter, the Model 39, designed to be interoperable with GDOs from various manufacturers, including Chamberlain’s. Skylink’s transmitter did not use rolling code technology but could bypass Chamberlain’s TM to operate the GDO. Chamberlain sued Skylink for violating the anti-trafficking provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(2), alleging the Model 39 was a device primarily designed to circumvent its TM. Chamberlain did not allege that Skylink’s device enabled or contributed to copyright infringement of its software; the only “access” was the consumer’s use of the GDO for its intended purpose.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does trafficking in a device that bypasses a technological measure controlling access to a copyrighted work violate the DMCA’s anti-trafficking provision, § 1201(a)(2), when the device enables only legitimate, non-infringing uses of the work by authorized users?
No. The court affirmed summary judgment for Skylink. Chamberlain failed to establish Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does trafficking in a device that bypasses a technological measure controlling access to a copyrighted work violate the DMCA’s anti-trafficking provision, § 1201(a)(2), when the device enables only legitimate, non-infringing uses of the work by authorized users?
Conclusion
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e
Legal Rule
To state a prima facie claim for trafficking in a circumvention device Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu
Legal Analysis
The court rejected Chamberlain's broad interpretation that the DMCA prohibits any device Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The DMCA’s anti-trafficking provision, § 1201(a)(2), requires a nexus between circumvention