The SCPA Part II – How Do You Protect Your Rights?

SCPA_2 Semiconductor chips have become a popular and widely used product in almost all electronics today. Considering how ubiquitous these products are, it might be surprising to learn that the owners of these chips are extended large amounts of protection over their work.

In late 1984 Congress passed the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (“SCPA”, also known as 17 USC §§901-914). This Act provides protective mechanisms to innovators (“mask work owners” in the Act) of original semiconductor chip products. The Act is part of the United States Copyright Act, meaning protections afforded and mechanisms for enforcement bear some resemblance to those found in other areas of Copyright Law. To learn more about the protections provided and who can hold these protections, see Part I of this two-part series.

Starting with section 910, the Act turns to consider enforcement of legal rights granted under the Act, and civil remedies should an owner’s rights be breached. This section provides that the owner can bring a claim against any individual or State that violates his rights and protections afforded under the Act once his product has been registered by with Copyright Office.

The Act then goes on to cover possible remedies available to the court in the event a civil action is brought. These can include the granting of temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions. Should the court find the infringer liable to the owner, the court will award actual damages suffered by the owner as a result of the infringement. This will often include any profits the infringer made from using and selling the owner’s technology in the infringer’s goods. Unlike many other areas of US civil law, in the case of infringement under the SCPA, the court is allowed to grant full recovery costs, including attorney’s fees, to the winning party. This provides a strong incentive to make a claim only in very solid cases.

There is also a Statute of Limitations element found in the Act, providing that an infringement claim is barred unless the action is started within three years after the claim has accrued.

As mentioned above, a claim for infringement can be brought against both individuals and States. The Act removes any possible immunity protections normally offered to States and governments, providing that the Eleventh Amendment of the US Constitution will not protect these parties.

The remainder of the Act, sections 912, 913, and 914 outline that the Act trumps State laws and other laws related to semiconductors. It also breaks down what is known as the “transitional period” where individuals are prevented from bring their claim for a period of time to give the government and judiciary time to establish an appropriate system to deal with these claims.

For more information about the SCPA, contact Revision Legal’s Copyright attorneys through the form on this page or call 855-473-8474.

Extra, Extra!
Recent Posts

2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

Trademark

There are some significant changes coming to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that will affect trademark filings beginning January 18, 2025. These changes include the introduction of the Trademark Center, new fees, and revised application requirements. Here is an overview of the key changes: The USPTO will retire the TEAS system, which […]

Read more about 2025 Changes to Trademark Fees

Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

Internet Law

In today’s competitive e-commerce landscape, automated decision-making technology is becoming more and more important. From personalized product recommendations to targeted advertising and streamlined logistics, these systems help ecommerce businesses adapt and grow. But new regulations are on the horizon, and these changes could reshape the way e-commerce businesses use automation. The California Privacy Protection Agency […]

Read more about Automated Decision-Making Technology: California Releases Proposed Regulations

FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

Internet Law

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued final amendments to its trade regulation rule concerning negative option plans, also known as the “click to cancel rule.” This rule aims to address widespread deceptive practices that prohibit customers from cancelling services in the same manner in which they signed up. Here’s a detailed summary of the […]

Read more about FTC Adopts Final “Click to Cancel Rule”

Put Revision Legal on your side