Elizabeth Holmes, Ghislaine Maxwell, and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 34]
Jones Day Talks®: Patent Litigation, PTAB, Iancu's Legacy, and Institution Discretion
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
In Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the “full costs” the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a party in copyright litigation means the costs specified in the...more
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the term “full costs” in 17 USC § 505 of the Copyright Act has no special, expansive meaning, but is limited to the costs...more
On March 4, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling that required Rimini Street to pay $12.8 million for Oracle’s litigation costs in a copyright infringement case. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. Many of the costs...more
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court issued two unanimous opinions that clarify when copyright owners can sue for infringement and what costs they can recover from infringers. In Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, the Court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings last week on copyright law. In both cases, they acted to resolve conflicts between the Circuits, following closely to statutory language....more
In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled questions relating to copyright applications vs. copyright registrations, while in Rimini Street v. Oracle, the justices ruled on...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, March 4, 2019, held in a 9-0 decision that the term “full costs” in § 505 of the Copyright Act is limited by the general “costs” statute (28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920). For example, § 505 does...more
A unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court held that the word "full" was insufficient to justify awarding additional, nontaxable costs to the prevailing party. Under the American Rule, the prevailing party ordinarily must bear...more
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two unanimous opinions interpreting provisions of the Copyright Act. In the first case, the Court decided that the Copyright Office must register a copyright before a copyright...more
Copyright litigants should take note of the pair of unanimous decisions handed down by the Supreme Court on Monday: Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, No. 17-571, 2019 LEXIS 1730 (Mar. 4, 2019), and...more
It has been a big week for copyright cases, and it’s only Wednesday. This Monday, the Supreme Court issued opinions on two copyright cases pending before it from the October 2018 term. ...more
Today, the Supreme Court issued three decisions: Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., No. 17-1625: Section 505 of the Copyright Act permits courts to award “full costs” to a party in a civil action. Broadly interpreting...more
In two unanimous opinions, the Supreme Court on March 4, 2019, clarified two important issues under the Copyright Act—in both cases, based on a strict reading of the relevant text. ...more
Today, March 4, 2019 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Rimini Street v. Oracle USA that “full costs” described in 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the (Copyright Act) are limited to the six categories of taxable costs set...more
The Supreme Court was busy yesterday issuing opinions involving copyright law (see the TMCA’s post yesterday on Fourth Estate vs. Wallstreet.com concerning the need to obtain a copyright registration before initiating an...more
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two unanimous decisions interpreting the Copyright Act. In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, 586 U.S. ___, the Court resolved a circuit split over when...more
On July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that can be an important tool to help copyright owners enforce their rights. It’s not unusual for copyright owners to believe that it’s just not worth going after some...more
Supreme Court Expands Discretion to Award Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement and Eliminates the Federal Circuit’s ‘Seagate Test’ - In Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court...more
In Depth - Under 17 USC § 505, a “court may … award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party.” However, when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, 17 USC...more
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
Last week in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons Inc., the Supreme Court held that district courts have wide discretion to grant attorney’s fee awards but should give substantial weight to whether the losing party was objectively...more
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
Supap Kirtsaeng realized he could buy cheaper, identical textbooks in Thailand and resell them for a profit in the U.S. John Wiley & Sons, the publisher of some of these textbooks, sued him for copyright infringement. ...more