rolling code system by imitating Security+'s resynchronization feature. The Model 39 transmitter sends three fixed codes in rapid succession; this either causes the door to open due to the first code or it causes the door to resynchronize and open due to the latter two codes. Relevant law This case involves the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(b) states: No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; Procedural history Chamberlain sued Skylink in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in two cases. In the first case, Chamberlain I, Chamberlain alleged that Skylink's actions violated the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA and moved for summary judgment. The court denied Chamberlain's motion for summary judgment. In the second case, Chamberlain II, Chamberlain alleged that Skylink infringed their patents and violated the anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA. With regards to the DMCA claim in Chamberlain II, Chamberlain contended that: Model 39 was designed to circumvent the protection mechanism placed by Chamberlain's rolling code (infringing §1201(a)(2)(A)). It has limited commercial use other than to circumvent the rolling code (infringing §1201(a)(2)(B)). It was marketed to circumvent that technology (infringing §1201(a)(2)(C)). In response, Skylink claimed that "consumers use the Model 39 transmitter to activate the Security+ GDOs with Chamberlain's consent." §1201(a)(3)(A) states that to "circumvent a technological measure" means to "descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." They also claimed that the Model 39 transmitter served a variety of functions that were unrelated to circumvention, that Chamberlain had failed to demonstrate that its GDOs contained a computer program protected by copyright, that Skylink had not violated the DMCA because its acts fell within a safe harbor provision per §1201(f), and that Chamberlain's rolling code computer program did not protect a copyrighted computer program, but instead protects an uncopyrightable process. Chamberlain claimed that (1) Skylink had the burden to prove that their use was authorized and (2) Chamberlain "never gave consumers explicit authorization to program competing universal transmitters into its rolling code openers." The District Court agreed