Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit • 2006 • Docket #736005

Create New Course

Create a new course to organize your saved briefs

Enter the name of the course (e.g., Constitutional Law)

Enter the term when you're taking this course (e.g., Spring 2025)

447 F.3d 769 78 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1728 70 Fed. R. Serv. 187 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 12100 2006 WL 1329955

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.

Try Free for 14 Days

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A sheriff’s department installed software on more computers than it had licenses for, claiming it wasn’t infringement because use was restricted. The court disagreed, finding the over-installation itself constituted copyright infringement not excused by fair use or as an essential step.

Legal Significance: The case clarifies that installing software on more machines than licensed is copyright infringement, regardless of technological measures limiting concurrent use. It reinforces the distinction between a software licensee and an owner for purposes of the § 117 “essential step” defense.

Wall Data Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department 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 Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (Defendant) purchased a total of 3,663 licenses for Wall Data, Inc.’s (Plaintiff) RUMBA software. To expedite the setup of a new facility and provide flexibility for its employees, the Defendant used a “hard disk imaging” process to install the software onto 6,007 computers, significantly more than the number of licenses it held. The Defendant argued this was not infringement because it implemented a password-based security system that prevented the number of simultaneous users from ever exceeding the 3,663 licenses it had purchased. Wall Data discovered the over-installation and sued for copyright infringement, alleging a violation of its click-through and volume license agreements. The Defendant asserted the affirmative defenses of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and the “essential step” defense under 17 U.S.C. § 117. The district court granted summary judgment to Wall Data on the fair use defense, and a jury subsequently found the Defendant liable for copyright infringement.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the defendant’s installation of copyrighted software onto more computers than it had licenses for constitute copyright infringement, even though it implemented a system to prevent simultaneous use from exceeding the number of licenses?

Yes. The court held that installing the software onto more computers than 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 c

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

Did the defendant’s installation of copyrighted software onto more computers than it had licenses for constitute copyright infringement, even though it implemented a system to prevent simultaneous use from exceeding the number of licenses?

Conclusion

This case establishes that convenience does not justify exceeding the scope of 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 vo

Legal Rule

The fair use defense requires a case-by-case analysis of four statutory factors: 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

Legal Analysis

The court's analysis focused on the Defendant's two primary affirmative defenses. First, 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

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Summary unavailable

No flash summary is available for this opinion.