Intellectual Property News and Reports

This appeal arises from the aftermath of Ms. Wanda Bowling’s contract with the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission. When the contract ended, Ms. Bowling allegedly withheld the Commission’s login information for three online accounts. The withholding of login information led the Commission to sue for breach of contract, and Ms. Bowling counterclaimed for libel and misclassification of her employment status. 

The district court dismissed the counterclaim for misclassification of employment status and granted summary judgment to the Commission on all other claims. Ms. Bowling appeals, raising six issues:

1. Subject-matter jurisdiction on the Commission’s claims. For diversity jurisdiction, the Commission needed to allege an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Did the Commission allege facts that could reasonably reflect damages exceeding $75,000? We answer yes.

2. Liability for breach of contract. The contract stated that the Commission (a) owned “all intellectual property” and (b) was entitled to the return of all “deliverables undertaken in furtherance of [s]ervices” and “materials” that contain, reflect, incorporate, or are based on confidential information. After the contract ended, Ms. Bowling allegedly declined to give the Commission her login information for three accounts. Did the login information constitute intellectual property; deliverables undertaken in furtherance of services; or materials that contain, reflect, incorporate, or are based on confidential information? We conclude that the answer turns on a genuine dispute of material fact based on ambiguities in the contract.

3. Damages for breach of contract. After Ms. Bowling’s contract ended, a vendor charged the Commission more than it had budgeted. Did the Commission establish as a matter of law that these charges had resulted from Ms. Bowling’s alleged breach of contract? We answer no.

4. Leave to amend. Ms. Bowling moved for leave to amend her counterclaim for misclassification of employment status, and the district court denied leave based on timeliness. Did the district court abuse its discretion in declining to find good cause for the delay? We answer no.

5. Sua sponte award of summary judgment. Ms. Bowling challenges the grant of summary judgment on her counterclaim for libel. The district court had granted summary judgment based on an affirmative defense of qualified privilege. But the Commission hadn’t sought summary judgment based on a qualified privilege. Did the district court err by failing to give Ms. Bowling notice and an opportunity to respond? We answer yes.

6. Substantial truth. Substantial truth is an absolute defense to libel. In light of this defense, we must determine whether the Commission’s alleged statements were substantially true. We answer yes.

Download Interstate Medical Licensure Compact Commission v. Bowling