News & Analysis as of

First Sale Doctrine Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

The First Sale Doctrine is rule of copyright law providing that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted material has the right to do what they wish with that particular copy, i.e. sell,... more +
The First Sale Doctrine is rule of copyright law providing that an individual who knowingly purchases a copy of a copyrighted material has the right to do what they wish with that particular copy, i.e. sell, display or dispose of that copy. However, the First Sale Doctrine does not grant individual purchasers the right to make unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted material and consequently, the First Sale Doctrine cannot be used as a defense against claims of infringing reproductions.  less -
Jackson Walker

Supreme Court Holds Sale of Patented Product Exhausts All Patent Rights

Jackson Walker on

In a nearly unanimous opinion issued recently, the U.S. Supreme Court held “a patentee’s decision to sell a product exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, regardless of any restrictions the patentee purports to...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

First Sale Extinguishes Patent Rights: Supreme Court Guts Manufacturer Control Over Secondary Market

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Manufacturers have long used patents, licenses and litigation to deter competitive products and restrict secondary markets in their products. The U.S. Supreme Court just dealt these practices a severe blow, confirming that a...more

Buchalter

The Supreme Court Clarifies Standard For Attorney Fee Awards In Copyright Cases

Buchalter on

Copyright infringement litigation has been on the rise in recent years, particularly in the Central District of California, with the apparel industry feeling the brunt of this uptick. In a typical case, a plaintiff alleges...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP - Social Media

The Kirtsaeng Opinion: Supreme Court Guidance on Attorneys’ Fees Awards in Copyright Cases

Recently, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court provided substantial guidance in an unsettled area of law by holding that, when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. §505, the...more

Alston & Bird

Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Attorneys’ Fees in Copyright Infringement Actions

Alston & Bird on

On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., to provide lower courts with guidance regarding the circumstances for awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party in a...more

Ladas & Parry LLP

Supreme Court In Kirstaeng V Wiley: Objective Reasonableness Not Controlling For Attorney Fees

Ladas & Parry LLP on

The case of Kirstaeng v. Wiley hit the headlines in 2013 when the Supreme Court held that importation and sale in the United States of books bought from the copyright owner in Thailand was not an infringement of copyright,...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Supreme Court Injects Uncertainty Into Attorney’s Fee Awards in Copyright Cases

The day after it liberalized the standard for awarding enhanced damages in patent cases, a unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Kagan, substantially broadened lower courts’ discretion in granting...more

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

Supreme Court Provides Guidance on Discretionary Fee-Shifting in Copyright Cases

On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified how courts should exercise their discretion to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases. The Court unanimously held that courts should give...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

The Importance of Being Earnest and Objectively Reasonable

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. continues to make controlling copyright law, visiting the U.S. Supreme Court for the second time on an issue of great importance to copyright owners and litigants. This time, the issued...more

Foley Hoag LLP - Making Your Mark

Objective Reasonableness Can Be Central to Fee-Shifting Analysis in Copyright Cases

In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the test for awarding attorney’s fees when applying the Copyright Act’s discretionary fee-shifting provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Court held that the...more

BakerHostetler

Supreme Court Clarifies Test for Fee-Shifting in Copyright Cases

BakerHostetler on

The Supreme Court on June 16 issued a unanimous ruling clarifying the test for awarding attorneys’ fees to successful copyright litigants. The decision, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., is sure to have lasting impact...more

Genova Burns LLC

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Awarding Attorneys’ Fees to Successful Copyright Litigants.

Genova Burns LLC on

On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, clarified the standard for awarding attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act. This is the second time the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, No....more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

Show Me the Money - Kirtsaeng and Supreme Court Guidance on Attorneys’ Fees Awards in Copyright Cases

WHAT’S NEW - Yesterday, the Supreme Court provided substantial guidance in an unsettled area of law by holding that, in deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, 17...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Righting Copyright Wrongs Remains Elusive – Kirtsaeng Leaves Fee Awards to District Court Discretion

On June 16, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc., No. 15-375, resolved a circuit court split by reaffirming the test district courts should use to determine whether to award attorney’s fees...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

The Double-Edged Sword: Supreme Court Holds “Objective Reasonableness” Important But Not Dispositive in Copyright Act Fee Awards

It is a common misperception that a party will automatically recover its attorneys’ fees if it prevails in an action for copyright infringement. First, certain statutory requirements must be met in order to qualify for the...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - June 2016 #4

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases on June 16, 2016: Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7: Yarushka Rivera, a teenage beneficiary of...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review | March 2016

Knobbe Martens on

Under O2 Micro, a District Court Must Provide a Claim Construction if the Parties Dispute the Meaning of a Claim Term - In Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Springs Networks, Inc., Appeal No. 2015-1237, the Federal...more

Fenwick & West LLP

Intellectual Property Bulletin - Winter 2016

Fenwick & West LLP on

European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation to Usher in Sweeping Changes Affecting Data Protection and Privacy Practices of European and U.S. Companies - In December 2015 the European Commission published a...more

McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC

Federal Circuit “Tones Down” Efforts to Expand Patent Exhaustion

In a rare instance in which all judges participated, the Federal Circuit issued a ruling earlier this month, in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., on the legal issue of patent exhaustion for both...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Precedents on Domestic and International Patent Exhaustion Principles Remain Unchanged (Lexmark Int’l, Inc., v....

McDermott Will & Emery on

The en banc U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its long awaited (10-2) decision, reaffirming the court’s prior rulings in Mallinckrodt and Jazz Photo that a seller can use its patent rights to block resale...more

Weintraub Tobin

The Federal Circuit Finds Foreign Sales Do Not Exhaust Patent Rights

Weintraub Tobin on

In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Impression Products, Inc., No. 14-1617 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided en banc that a U.S. patent owner’s “first sale” of items in a foreign...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Rules Its Precedents on Domestic and International Patent Exhaustion Principles Not Changed by Supreme Court Cases

McDermott Will & Emery on

Lexmark International, Inc., v. Impression Products, Inc., Case Nos. 14-1617, -1619 (Fed Cir, Feb. 12, 2016) (en banc) (Taranto, J., joined by Prost, CJ and Newman, Lourie, Moore, O’Malley, Reyna, Wallach, Chen and Stoll, JJ)...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

En Banc Federal Circuit Limits Patent Exhaustion

Foley & Lardner LLP on

In Lexmark International, Inc., v. Impression Products, Inc., the en banc Federal Circuit upheld a patent holder’s rights against exhaustion under two circumstances: (1) where the patent holder had sold a patented article...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Federal Circuit Declines to Disturb Established Precedent Regarding the Exhaustion of Patent Rights

On February 12, 2016, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision confirming two important aspects of the doctrine of patent exhaustion in the anticipated en banc decision in Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Impression...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court to Consider (1) PTAB AIA Claim Construction and Reviewability of Institution Decisions and (2) Attorney Fee Awards...

McDermott Will & Emery on

The U. S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review a panel decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision that the U.S. Patent and Trademark’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) was...more

43 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide