In U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v. Parts Geek, LLC, U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. (USAP) sued Parts Geek for, among other claims, copyright infringement of Manager 2000 (Manager), an order processing program.

Lucas Thomason, a computer programmer, developed Manager while he was self-employed and gave Partsbin (a website that sold replacement car parts) a perpetual license to use the program. Partsbin subsequently hired Thomason as its director of eServices. While employed by Partsbin, Thomason made modifications and enhancements to Manager. His work at Partsbin included tailoring the software to fit Partsbin's business changes and developing at least four more versions of Manager. In 2006, USAP acquired Partsbin. The acquisition agreement listed Partsbin's assets as including all of its intellectual property, including its e-commerce system and Manager. After the acquisition, Thomason was hired by USAP to continue managing and updating the Manager software, and created at least two more versions of e-commerce software.

Around June 2008, the original founders of Partsbin launched a new online car parts retailer called Parts Geek. Parts Geek engaged Thomason to provide e-commerce software for its website. Thomason began working on the Parts Geek project approximately four weeks before he resigned from USAP. USAP filed suit against Parts Geek and Thomason claiming Parts Geek's software infringed its copyrights in Manager. The district court granted summary judgment to Parts Geek and Thomason on the basis that USAP did not own the copyright to Manager because Thomas never agreed to transfer his ownership of Manager to either Partsbin or USAP.

On August 31, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion reversing the district court's ruling. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit found that a jury reasonably could infer that:

In evaluating whether Thomason's work on the Manager software while employed by Partsbin and USAP qualified as work made for hire, the court first noted that the terms "employee" and "scope of employment" used in Section 201(b) of the Copyright Act are understood by reference to the general common law of agency. The court joined other circuits in adopting section 228 of the Restatement (Second) of Agency's three-prong test to determine when a work is made by an employee in the scope of employment. Specifically, this test asks whether the work:

Applying this test, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a jury could reasonably determine that Thomason's work on Manager while employed Partsbin and USAP was work made for hire.

The court also noted that a jury could have reasonably inferred that the enhancements Thomason made to Manager while employed by Partsbin and USAP were copyrightable as derivative works and that Partsbin.

The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the matter to the district court with instructions to develop the record regarding threshold issues of copyright ownership and infringement.