Polish IP & IT law » 2008

Archive for: February, 2008

US case law on computers and IT

February 28th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Last updated on 16 January 2010.

This short compilation of US computer (IT, Internet, cyberlaw, telecommunication) case law will be also available and under later developement on my new Wiki system.

I. Jurisdiction
II. Contracts
III. Trespass to chattels
IV. Intellectual Property
V. Regulating content and speech
VI. Privacy
VII. Computer and Internet crimes
VIII. E-government
IX. Litigation

I. JURISDICTION

A. Specific jurisdiction.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo DOT Com, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (D. Pa. 1997).
Euromarket Designs, Inc. v. Crate & Barrel Ltd., 96 F. Supp. 2d 824 (D. Ill. 2000).
Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Va. 2000).
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Digital Serv. Consultants, Inc., 293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002).
Griffis v. Luban, 646 N.W.2d 527 (Minn. 2002).
Pavlovich v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 262 (Cal. 2002).
Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002).
Jennings v. AC Hydraulic A/S, 383 F.3d 546 (7th Cir. 2004).

B. General jurisdiction

C. Criminal analogy

United States v. Rowe, 414 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2005).

D. Enforcement

Louis Feraud Int’l S.A.R.L. v. Viewfinder Inc., 406 F. Supp. 2d 274 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

II. CONTRACTS

A. Browserwrap licenses

Pollstar v. Gigmania Ltd., 170 F. Supp. 2d 974 (D. Cal. 2000).
Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.Com, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12987 (D. Cal. 2000).
Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 126 F. Supp. 2d 238 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Comb v. Paypal, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 2d 1165 (D. Cal. 2002).
Cairo, Inc. v. Crossmedia Servs., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8450 (D. Cal. 2005).

B. Shrinkwrap and clikwrap licenses

Step-Saver Data Sys., Inc. v. Wyse Tech., 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991).
Arizona Retail Sys. v. Software Link, Inc. 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993).
Caspi v. Microsoft Network, 323 N.J. Super. 118 (App. Div. 1999).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1147 (7th Cir. 1997).
Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 246 A.D.2d 246, 676 N.Y.S.2d 569 (App. Div. 1998).
Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., 104 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (D. Kan. 2000).
M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wn.2d 568 (Wash. 2000).
Williams v. America Online, Inc., 2001 Mass. Super. LEXIS 11 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2001).
i.Lan Systems, Inc. v. Netscout Service Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).

C. Terms Of Service

Oestreicher v. Alienware Corp., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (D. Cal. 2007)

D. Software licenses

Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Elecs., 846 F. Supp. 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).
National Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
Bowers v. Baystate Techs., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Packeteer, Inc. v. Valencia Sys., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21348 (D. Cal. 2007).

E. FLOSS licenses

Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Quest Software, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 688 (D. Ill. 2004).
Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2001).
Progress Software Corp. v. MySQL AB, 195 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002).
SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 318784 (D.Utah, 2005).
Wallace v. Free Software Found., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53003 (D. Ind. 2006).
Wallace v. IBM, 467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006).

F. Contractual and statutory liability for defective software

Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., 39 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 1999).
In re AOL, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001).
In re SONY BMG CD Technologies Litigation, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9575, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9329, (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

G. Auction sites and contracts

Perez v. Hung Kien Luu, 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8670 (Tex. App. 2007)

III. TRESPASS TO CHATTELS

A. Trespass involving spam

Compuserve Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, 962 F. Supp. 1015 (D. Ohio 1997).
America Online v. LCGM, Inc., 46 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Va. 1998).

B. Trespass to online databases

Ebay, Inc. v. Bidder’s Edge, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (D. Cal. 2000).
Buchanan Marine, Inc. v. McCormack Sand Co., 743 F. Supp. 139 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 30 Cal. 4th 1342 (Cal. 2003).
Assessment Techs. of Wi, LLC v. Wire Data, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2004).
Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F. Supp. 2d 627 (D. Pa. 2007).

IV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

A. Copyright
1. Protection of computer software

Synercom Technology, Inc. v. University Computing Co., 462 F. Supp. 1003 (D. Tex. 1978).
Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
Sega Enters. v. Maphia, 857 F. Supp. 679 (D. Cal. 1994).
Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, 40 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1569, 996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15454 (E.D. Va. 1996).
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, 516 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1996).

2. Reverse engineering, technological protection measures, anti-circumventions (17 U.S.C. §§ 1201-1204)

Hubco Data Products Corp. v. Management Assistance, Inc., 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 450, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19515.
Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. GameMasters, 87 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 1999).
RealNetworks, Inc. v. Streambox, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1889 (W.D. Wash. 2000).
Felten v. RIAA, No. CV-0102669 (D.N.J. Nov. 27, 2001).
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001).
United States v. Elcomsoft Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
Pearl Investments, LLC v. Standard I/O, Inc., 257 F.Supp.2d 326 (D.Me. 2003).
Lexmark Int’l v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004).
321 Studios v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 1085 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
I.M.S. Inquiry Mgmt. Sys., Ltd. v. Bershire Info. Sys., Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 521 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).
Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Filipiak, 406 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Cal. 2005).
Davidson & Assocs. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005).
Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware Eng’g & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP, 401 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005).
Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs., Inc., 507 F.Supp.2d 1096 (D. Cal. 2007).
Auto Inspection Services, Inc. v. Flint Auto Auction, Inc. et al. (E.D. Mich. 2007).

3. Different copyright infringement issues (civil actions, DMCA, websites)

L.A.Times v. Free Republic, 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1453, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669 (D. Cal. 2000).
Umg Recordings v. Mp3.com, Inc., 92 F. Supp. 2d 349 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
A&M Records v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
Tur v. Youtube, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50254 (D. Cal. 2007).
Biosafe-One, Inc. v. Hawks, 524 F. Supp. 2d 452 (D.N.Y. 2007).

4. Derivative Works issues (framing, deep links)

Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Anagramics, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 2005, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2265 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc., 54 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1344, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4553 (C.D. Cal. 2000).
Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc., 75 F. Supp. 2d 1290 (D. Utah 1999).
Digital Equip. Corp. v. AltaVista Tech., 960 F. Supp. 456 (D. Mass. 1997).
Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Computer Corp., 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33937 (9th Cir. 2000).

5. Communication Act, satellite programming

DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh, 503 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Trademarks (domain names and unfair competition, search engines and trademarks, keywords)
1. Domain names as trademarks

Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393 (2d Cir. 2004).
Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 74 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6228 (N.D. Cal. 2005)
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.com, Inc., 414 F.3d 400 (2d Cir. 2005).

2. Cybersquatting

Sporty’s Farm L.L.C. v. Sportsman’s Mkt., Inc., 202 F.3d 489 (2d Cir. 2000).
Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d 214 (4th Cir. 2002).
Barcelona.com, Inc. v Excelentisimo Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, 330 F.3d 617 (4th Cir. 2003).
Atlas Copco AB v. www.atlascopcoiran.com, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1828 (D. Va. 2008).

3. Free speech and fair use of trademarks in domain names

C. Databases

D. Patents (software patents and business models patents)

Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (U.S. 1972).
In re Application of Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
Paine, Webber, Jackson & Curtis v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 564 F. Supp. 1358 (D. Del. 1983).
Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F.2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communs., Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
British Telecomms. PLC v. Prodigy Communs. Corp., 217 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

E. Trade secrets

Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc., 920 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1990).
Ashland Management v. Janien, 82 N.Y.2d 395 (N.Y. 1993).
Barr-Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. App. 590 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).
Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1993).
Rivendell Forest Prods. v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 28 F.3d 1042 (10th Cir. 1994).
Avtec Sys. v. Peiffer, 38 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1922, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25901 (4th Cir. 1995).
Garelli Wong & Assocs. v. Nichols, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3288 (D. Ill. 2008).
Bank Julius Baer & Co. v. Wikileaks, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14758 (D. Cal. 2008).

V. REGULATING CONTENT AND COMMUNICATION

A. Pornography

Reno v. Aclu, 521 U.S. 844 (U.S. 1997).

B. Defamation and information torts

Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy Servs. Co., 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229 (S.D.N.Y. Misc. 1995).
Zeran v. Am. Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
Ben Ezra, Weinstein, & Co. v. America Online, Inc., 206 F.3d 980 (10th Cir. 2000).
Green v. Am. Online (AOL), 318 F.3d 465 (3d Cir. 2003).
Doe v. GTE Corp., 347 F.3d 655 (7th Cir. 2003).
Barrett v. Rosenthal, 114 Cal. App. 4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004).
Batzel v. Smith, 372 F. Supp. 2d 546 (C.D. Cal. 2005).
Universal Commun. Sys. v. Lycos, Inc., 478 F.3d 413 (1st Cir. 2007).
Mazur v. Ebay, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16561 (D. Cal. 2008).
Chi. Lawyers’ Comm. for Civ. Rights Under Law v. Craigslist, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5472 (7th Cir. 2008).

C. Spam

Media3 Techs., LLC v. Mail Abuse Prevention Sys., LLC, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1310 (D. Mass. 2001).
White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. Univ. of Texas, 420 F.3d 366 (5th Cir. 2005).
Hall v. EarthLink Network, Inc., 396 F.3d 500 (2d Cir. 2005).
Phillips v. Worldwide Internet Solutions, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44152 (D. Cal. 2006).
Jaynes v. Commonwealth, 48 Va. App. 673 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
United States v. Cyberheat, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15448 (D. Ariz. 2007).

D. Liability of internet service providers

Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Netcom On-Line Commun. Servs., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (D. Cal. 1995).
United States v. Am. Library Ass’n, 539 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2003).
ALS Scan, Inc. v. RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619 (4th Cir. 2001).
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004).
Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Wash. 2004).
Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc., 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004).
CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc., 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004).
Charter Communs., Inc. v. Charter Communs., Inc., 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005).
Field v. Google Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006).

VI. PRIVACY (cookies, adware, spyware)

A. Cookies, adware

In re Doubleclick Privacy Litig., 154 F. Supp. 2d 497 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
In re Intuit Privacy Litig., 138 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
Directv, Inc. v. Jae Sun Chin, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15815 (W.D. Tex. 2003).

B. Spyware

Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
Specht v. Netscape Communs. Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002).
Sotelo v. DirectRevenue, LLC, 384 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

C. Other issues
1. Posting different types of information

Michaels v. Internet Entertainment Group, 5 F. Supp. 2d 823 (D. Cal. 1998).
In the Matter of Geocities, 127 F.T.C. 94 (F.T.C 1999).
Remsburg v. Docusearch, Inc., 149 N.H. 148 (N.H. 2003).
Topheavy Studios, Inc. v. Doe, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 6462 (Tex. App. 2005).
John Doe No. 1 v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005).
Federal Trade Commission, Gateway Learning Corporation; Analysis to Aid Public Comment, 69 Fed. Reg. 42176, (July 14, 2004).
Lambert v. Hartman, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 4019 (6th Cir. 2008).

2. Data retention and interception (administrative, civil and criminal aspects)

Steve Jackson Games, Inc. v. United States Secret Serv., 36 F.3d 457 (5th Cir. 1994).
McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (D.D.C. 1998).
Columbia Ins. Co. v. Seescandy.com, 185 F.R.D. 573 (D. Cal. 1999).
United States v. Kennedy, 81 F.Supp.2d 1103 (D. Kan 2000).
United States v. Scarfo, 180 F. Supp. 2d 572 (D.N.J. 2001).
Trulock v. Freeh, 275 F.3d 391 (4th Cir. 2001).
Fraser v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 352 F.3d 107 (3d Cir. 2003).
United States v. Steiger, 318 F.3d 1039 (11th Cir. 2003).
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am., Inc. v. Verizon Internet Servs., 359 U.S. App. D.C. 85 (D.C. Cir. 2003).
Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2004).
United States v. Councilman, 418 F.3d 67 (1st Cir. 2005).
Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2277, 97 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1104 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
O’Grady v. Superior Court, 139 Cal. App. 4th 1423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006).
Doe I v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2d Cir. 2006).
Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).

VII. COMPUTER AND INTERNET CRIMES

A. Hacking (system breach and/or data manipulation, etc.)

State v. McGraw, 480 N.E.2d 552 (Ind. 1985).
State v. Riley, 121 Wn.2d 22 (Wash. 1993).
Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
United States v. Sablan, 92 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 1996).
Sherman & Co. v. Salton Maxim Housewares, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 2d 817 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp., 171 F. Supp. 2d 667 (D. Tex. 2001).
United States v. Ivanov, 175 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Conn. 2001).
Guin v. Brazos Higher Educ. Serv. Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4846 (D. Minn. 2006).
In the Matter of BJ’S Wholesale Club, Inc., 2005 FTC LEXIS 134 (F.T.C 2005).
United States v. Heckenkamp, 482 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. Dos, DDoS, botnets

Tyco Int’l (US) Inc. v. Doe, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25136 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Ancheta, case No.2:05CR01060, unpublished (C.D. Cal. 2006).

C. Viruses, worms, trojans, timebombs

United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1991).
State v. Corcoran, 186 Wis. 2d 616 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994).
United States v. Lloyd, 269 F.3d 228 (3d Cir. 2001).
United States v. Pierre-Louis, 54 Fed. Appx. 691 (11th Cir. 2002).

D. IP crimes

United States v. Lambert, 446 F. Supp. 890 (D. Conn. 1978).
United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass. 1994).
Arista Records, Inc. v. MP3Board, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11392, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,658 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
United States v. Hsu, 40 F. Supp. 2d 623 (D. Pa. 1999).

E. Digital espionage, carding, e-banking robbery, online wars

F. Pornography

United States v. Maxwell, 446 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2006).

G. Other

People v. Fernino, 2008 NY Slip Op 28044, 1 (N.Y. Misc. 2008).

VIII. E-government (e-administration, e-voting, technological neutrality of the state, open standards) issues

Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (D. Cal. 2004).

IX. Litigation (e-evidences etc.)

Bakhtiari v. Lutz, 507 F.3d 1132 (8th Cir. 2007).

Categories: US law | case law | computer law | telecommunication law.

To disclose or not to disclose?

February 27th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Federico Biancuzzi wrote an article entitled “The Laws of Full Disclosure” which is available at securityfocus.com website. There is a little part where he asked me some questions regarding Polish and European legal regimes.

Polish patent attorneys, case II GSK 195/05

February 26th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Administrative Court in a judgment of 3 October 2005, case file II GSK 195/05, published in Orzecznictwo Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego i Wojewódzkich Sądów Administracyjnych 2006/2/65/199, ruled that according to article 9(1) of the Polish Act on Patent Attorneys – APAT – (in Polish: ustawa o rzecznikach patentowych) of 11 April 2001, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments, a patent attorney shall act as agent in proceedings before the Polish Patent Office, Polish courts and bodies deciding on industrial property matters. this article includes all forms of practice of the patent attorney (for the patent attorneys’ firm, for the employer and on the basis of civil contracts) and all matters of industrial property within the meaning of article 2 of the APAT, that are decided in each of the aforementioned proceedings.

Making available – is it infringement or not?

February 26th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The US case law. Atlantic Recording Corp. v. Brennan, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96276 (D. Conn. 2007).

At least one aspect of Plaintiffs’ distribution claim is problematic, however, namely the allegation of infringement based on “mak[ing] the Copyrighted Recordings available for distribution to others.” (Compl. 13.) This amounts to a valid ground on which to mount a defense, for “without actual distribution of copies… there is no violation [of] the distribution right.” 4 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright § 13:9 (2007)

Judge Janet Bond Arterton presents further very interesting conclusions. I guess, it is even more important, if you look at the whole P2P end-users suits’ issue.

In other similar cases brought by these Plaintiffs and other record labels, individual defendants have raised a host of colorable defenses; but due to the varying procedural postures, the viability of these defenses has largely yet to be conclusively determined. The defenses which have possible merit include: (1) whether the amount of statutory damages available under the Copyright Act, measured against the actual money damages suffered, is unconstitutionally excessive, see UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Lindor, No. 05-1095, 2006 WL 3335048, at 3 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (finding the defense non-frivolous); Zomba Enters., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574, 588 (6th Cir. 2007) (rejecting the defense as to a 44:1 damages ratio); see generally Blaine Evanson, Due Process in Statutory Damages, 3 Geo. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 601, 637 (2005);2 and (2) whether the Plaintiffs and their recording industry peers, by bringing infringement suits like this one, have engaged in anticompetitive behavior constituting copyright misuse, see Lava Records LLC v. Amurao, No. 07-321 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2007) (motion to dismiss copyright misuse counterclaim pending); Assessment Techs. of WI, LLC, v. WIREdata, Inc., 350 F.3d 640, 647 (7th Cir. 2003) (“The doctrine of misuse prevents copyright holders from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of areas outside the monopoly.”).

What do we have in the Polish law with regard to the aforementioned problem? The Polish Act on Authors Rights and Neighbouring Rights – ARNR – (in Polish: ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych) of 4 February 1994, published in Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 24, item 83, consolidated text of 16 May 2006, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No 90, item 631 with later amendments.

Article 116.
1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, discloses another’s work in its original or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.
2. If the perpetrator of the infringement commits the acts specified in paragraph 1 with a view to deriving a material profit therefrom, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.
3. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of six months to five years.
4. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 acts unintentionally, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to one year, restriction of freedom or a fine.

Article 117.
1. Any person who, without authorization or without respecting the conditions imposed, fixes or reproduces another’s work in its original version or in a derived form, or a performance, a phonogram or videogram or a broadcast, at the same time authorizing the disclosure thereof, shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to two years, restriction of freedom or a fine.
2. If the perpetrator of the infringement defined in paragraph 1 has made the infringement into a permanent source of income, or if he organizes or directs the offending activity referred to in paragraph 1, he shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of up to three years.

Class46

February 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Finally, after remaining anonymous for some time, I am allowed to introduce to you the website of Class46. It is an experimental site dedicated to European trade mark law and practice by friends and supporters of MARQUES. I was invited by Jeremy Phillips to join this project. You will find there lots of news that are presented by a very small but also super-extra-nice team. My friends are Birgit Clark, Frédéric Glaize Julia Holden, Ignacio Marqués and Gino van Roeyen. I am really happy to be a part of this group. I learn from them a lot. I hope you will also enjoy reading Class46.

Categories: Class46 post | EU law | legal research | trademark law.

Polish patent attorneys, II GSK 234/06

February 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Kulikowska & Kulikowski is a firm of patent attorneys (in Polish: kancelaria rzecznikow patentowych), constituted as a registered partnership. In the Polish legal system, there is no distinction between trade mark attorneys and patent attorneys: the legal profession, which deals with industrial property law, performs both those functions. The profession is regulated by the Act on Patent Attorneys – APAT – (in Polish: ustawa o rzecznikach patentowych) of 11 April 2001, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 49, item 509, with subsequent amendments, and is recognized by the Polish Commercial Companies Code – CCC – (in Polish: Kodeks spółek handlowych) of 15 September 2000, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) N. 94, item. 1037, with later amendments, as a “profession of public trust”.

In 2003, a year after making an offer to buy trade mark rights, which was turned down, K&K applied to the Polish Patent Office for the registration of the FLESZ trade mark for their own interest. There was rampant speculation that the law firm might have represented a client, the identity of whom they wished to keep secret in order to obtain the trade mark at a lower price. K&K initiated the proceedings to revoke the FLESZ trade mark registered in the name of Inco-Veritas in 1993. K&K based its claim on the fact that Inco-Veritas had ceased use of the mark for 5 years. The PPO discontinued the proceeding.

In 2005, K&K appealed to the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw. That court overturned the contested decision and ruled that the law firm could move for the revocation of the registered rights since the FLESZ trade mark had not been used. A court ruling to support K&K’s claim is needed for the PPO to let the firm register the trade mark for themselves.

Subsequently, Inco-Veritas filed the cassation complaint before the Polish Supreme Administrative Court (SAC). The Court ruled that K&K could not be a party in the lawsuit concerning the revocation of the rights in question because it lacked any proper interest to do so. The Court based its ruling on regulations included in the APA which provides that a law firm may provide services in the field of industrial property only to third parties. The SAC also ruled that such firms are not recognized as entrepreneurs as defined in article 87(2) of the Act on the Law of Economic Activity – ALEA – (in Polish: Prawo działalności gospodarczej) of 19 November 1999, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 101, item 1178. This law will be valid till 2011. Moreover, the SAC judged that K&K, being a law firm of patent attorneys and a registered partnership, was a company of public confidence. Accordingly, trade mark registration for its own use might undermine its credibility. The Voivodeship Administrative Court’s verdict was reversed and remitted for reconsideration. In 2006, the Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw confirmed SAC’s judgment and rejected K&K’s claim.

K&K filed a cassation suit to the Supreme Administrative Court claiming that article 87(2) of the ALEA and article 72 of the APA were inconsistent with the Polish Constitution with regard to the freedom to acquire property rights. The SAC in a judgment of 29 March 2007, case file II GSK 234/06, dismissed K&K’s suit and ruled that a patent attorney is not an entrepreneur and that the freedom of economic activities may be limited by important public interest. In this case, the limitation is recognized as the idea of “the profession of public confidence”. Judge Anna Robotowska said that it was clear that regulations limiting patent attorneys’ commercial activities are constitutional. The Court did not find it applicable to send the case to the Court of Justice of the European Communities because the lawsuit had begun in 2003, which is before Poland joined the European Union.

The judgment confirmed that a Polish patent attorney’s prime role is to professionally represent clients seeking trade mark registration. Barring patent attorneys from registering trade marks in their own interest may also prevent them from unethical business practices.

Trade mark law, case II CR 143/88

February 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The Supreme Court in a judgment of 25 October 1988, case file II CR 143/88, published in PUG 1990, nr 5-6, item. 10, ruled that a trade mark is solely a material interest and it is not subject to protection under the provisions of articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code – CC – (in Polish: Kodeks Cywilny) of 23 April 1964, Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw) No. 16, item 93, with later amendments.

Article 23
The personal interests/rights of a human being, in particular to health, dignity, freedom, freedom of conscience, surname or pseudonym, image, secrecy of correspondence, inviolability of home, and scientific, artistic, inventor’s and rationalizing achievements, shall be protected by civil law independent of protection envisaged in other provisions.

Article 24
§ 1 The person whose personal rights are threatened by someone else’s action, may require the desist of that action, unless it is not illegal. In the event of the infringement one may also require, the person who committed the violation, to fulfill the actions necessary to remove its effects, in particular, to make a statement of the relevant content and appropriate format. According to the conditions laid down in the Code one may also require monetary compensation or payment of an appropriate amount of money for a social purpose indicated.
§ 2 If as the result of a breach of personal rights one has suffered pecuniary prejudice, the aggrieved person may claim compensation based on general principles.
§ 3 The above shall not prejudice the entitlements provided by other regulations, in particular in copyright law and the patent (invention) law.

Patents, trolls and anonymity

February 25th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The successful strategy of Chicago plaintiffs firm Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro of representing patent-holding companies with strong infringement claims on a contingency basis has spawned many imitators.

The term “patent troll” was famously coined in reference to firm co-founder Ray Niro. But in the past few months the firm has been involved in such controversial situations that a question arises: Is this how a patent plaintiffs firm acts in middle age?
(…)
By that time Niro was involved in a growing spat with an anonymous blogger called the “Troll Tracker”. Niro doesn’t like to be called a “troll,” but Troll Tracker started referring to Niro that way. So Niro pulled out an old weapon. He e-mailed the blogger, informing him that he may be infringing on patent number 5,253,341.
(…)
For the moment, Niro and the Troll Tracker are at a standoff because the blogger refuses to reveal his identity. But Niro is willing to use his unorthodox tactics to surmount that obstacle. “I’ll offer $5,000 to anyone that can provide information that leads me to the identity of Troll Tracker,” Niro says, announcing the bounty publicly for the first time here in IP Law & Business. “I view these people [anonymous bloggers] as know-nothings,” he says, “afraid to reveal their identity.”

These are excerpt taken from the article available at law.com website. And now, all is suddenly clear. Troll Tracker is a blog owned by Rick Frenkel, who is currently working for Cisco.

Categories: US law | patent law.

EU supports BitTorrent client

February 21st, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

The team behind the social BitTorrent client Tribler is responsible for the core P2P technology for the project, dubbed P2P-Next. The project received $22 million (15 million Euro) from the European Union and another $6 million (4 million Euro) is brought in by some of the partners.

More details in the article available at www.torrentfreak.com website. So it looks like after couple of years of different attempts to penalize the technology as they tried in the US, finally we see more business approaches. Quite interesting.

Categories: EU law | digital economy | open standards.

US case law on copyright

February 20th, 2008, Tomasz Rychlicki

Here is a short list of US copyright case law which I did couple of months ago based on books I learnt from. I’ll try to add links and comments later. I will also prepare a Wiki page about this subject matter.

I. Concept of Copyright
II. Copyrightable Subject Matter
III. Ownership
IV. Formalities
V. Exclusive Rights
VI. Fair Use
VII. Enforcement of Copyright
VIII. Federal Preemption of State Law
IX. International Dimensions of Copyright

I. CONCEPT OF COPYRIGHT

A. General Principles of the U.S. copyright

White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1908).
Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S 201 (1954).
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995).
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U.S. 53 (1884).
Blienstein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U.S. 239 (1903).

B. Patents and copyright

Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc., 191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951).

C. Trademarks and copyright

Fredrick Warne & Co. v. Book Sales, Inc., 481 F. Supp. 1191 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).

D. Chattels

Forward v. Thorogood, 985 F.2d 604 (1st Cir. 1993).

E. Term of copyright protection

Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003).

F. Copyright to “orphan works”

Kahle v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2007).

G. Copyright misuse doctrine versus competition law

II. COPYRIGHTABLE SUBJECT MATTER

A. Original Works of Authorship

Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Magic Marketing v. Mailing Services Of Pittsburgh, 634 F. Supp. 769 (W.D.Pa. 1986).
Sebastian Int’l, Ind. v. Consumer Contacts (PTY) Ltd., 664 F. Supp.909 (D.N.J. 1987), rev’d on the other grounds, 847 F.2d 1093 (3d Cir. 1988).

B. The Ideal/Expression Dichotomy

Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).
Morrisey v. Procter & Gamble Co., 379 F.2d 675 (1st Cir. 1967).
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d by an equally divided court, 516 U.S 233 (1996).
American Dental Association v. Delta Dental Plans Association, 126 F.3d 977 (7th Cir 1997).
Bibbero Systems, Inc. v. Colwell Systems, Inc., 893 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1990).
Continental Casualty Co. v. Beardsley, 253 F. 2d 702 (2nd Cir.), certoriari denied, 358 U.S. 816 (1958).

C. Facts and Compilation

Feist Publication, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
Rockford Map Publishers, Inc. v. Directory Services Co., 768 F.2d 145 (7th Cir. 1985).
Nash v. CBS, 899 F.2d 1537 (7th Cir. 1990).
Wainwright Securities v. Wall Street Transcript Corp., 558 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1977).
Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106 (9th Cir. 1970).
Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 979 F.2d 242 (D.C.Cir. 1992).
Mathew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1998).
West Publishing Co. v. Mead Data Central, Inc., 799 F.2d 1219 (8th Cir. 1986).
CCC Information Services v. Maclean Hunter Market Reports, Inc., 44 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 1994).
BellSouth advertising & Publishing Corp. v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc., 999 F.2d 1436 (11th Cir. 1993).
Mason v. Montgomery Data, Inc., 967 F.2d 135 (5th Cir. 1992).
CDN .v Kapes, CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999).

D. Derivative Work

Batlin & Son v. Snyder, 536 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1976).
Maljack Productions, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 964 F. Supp. 1416 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

E. Computer Programs

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).
Data General Corp. v. Grumman Systems, 825 F. Supp. 340 (D. Mass. 1993).
Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 34 USPQ2d 1014 (1st Cir. 1995).
Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).

F. Pictorial, Graphic and Sculptural work

Masquerade Novelty Inc. v. Unique Industries, 912 F.2d 663 (3rd Cir. 1990)
Superior Form Builders, Inc v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co., 74 F.3d 488 (4th Cir. 1995), certoriari denied, 519 U.S. 809 (1996).
Satava v. Lovry, 323 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 2003).

G. Separability

Keiseltein Cord v. accessories By pearl., Inc., 632 F.2d 989 (2d Cir. 1980).
Carol Banhart Inc. v. Economy Cover Corp., 773 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1985).

H. Architectural Works

Demetriades v. Kaufmann, 680 F. Supp. 658 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).

I. Characters

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
Warner Bros., Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 216 F.2d 945 (9th Cir. 1954).
Anderson v. Stallone 11 U.S.P.Q.2D 1161 (C.D. Cal. 1989).
Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).
Detectives Comics, Inc. v. Bruns Publishing, Inc., 111 F.2d 432 (2d Cir. 1940).
Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2004).

J. TV formats

Barris/Fraser Enterprises v. Goodson-Todman Enterprise, 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146, 5 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1887 (S.D.NY. 1988).
CBS Broad., Inc. v. ABC, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20258 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

K. Sound recordings (sampling)

Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Newton v. Diamond, 349 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003).
Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 2004).

L. Government Works

County of Suffolk v. First Am. Real Estate Solutions, 261 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2001).
Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l, 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002).

M. Morality and public policy in granting copyright protection

Belcher v. Tarbox, 486 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1973).
Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 1979).
Devils Films, Inc. v. Nectar Video, 29 F. Supp. 2d 174 (S.D.N.Y. 1998).
Tunick v. Safir, 209 F.3d 67 (2d Cir. 2000).

N. Other

Open Source Yoga Unity v. Choudhury, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10440, 74 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1434, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28 (D. Cal. 2005).

III. OWNERSHIP

A. Initial Ownership

Adrien v. Southern Ocean County Chamber Of Commerce, 927 F.2d 132 (3d Cir. 1991).

B. Works Made For Hire

Community For Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S 730, 109 S. Ct 2166, 104 L. Ed 811 (1989).
Aymes v. Bonelli, 980 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1992).
Carter v. Helmsley- Spear, Inc., 71 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1995), 116 U.S 1824 (1996).

C. Joint Works

Thomas v. Larson, 147 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 1998).

D. Transfer of Copyright Ownership

Effects Associates v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990), cert denied, 498 U.S. 1103 (1991).
Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1998).
Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998).
Fantasy, Inc v. Fogerty, 654 F. Supp. 1129 (N.D. Cal. 1987).

E. Renewals and Derivative Works

Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 110S. Ct. 1750, 109 L. Ed.2d 184 (1990).
Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir 1979).

IV. FORMALITIES

Estate Of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D.Ga. 1998).
Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc., 944 F.2d 1446 (9th Cir. 1991).
Hasbro Bradely, Inc. v. Sparkle Toys, Inc., 780 F.2d 189 (2d Cir.1985).

V. EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS UNDER COPYRIGHT

A. Right to make copies

Mathew Bender & Co. v. West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2d Cir 1998).
Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946), cert. Denied, 330 U.S 851 (1947).
Dawson v. Hinshaw Music, Inc., 905 F.2d 731 (4th Cir.), cert. Denied, 498 U.S. 981 (1990) .
Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).
Laureyssens v. Idea Group, Inc., 964 F.2d 131 (2d Cir. 1992).
Ringgold v. Black Entertainment T.V. Inc., 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).
Peter Pan Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487 (2d Cir. 1960).
Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1971).
Educational Testing Services v. Katzman, 793 F.2d 533 (3d Cir. 1986).
Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp., 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930).
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 81 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1936).
Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 663 F. Supp. 706 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
Kisch v. Ammirati & Puris, Inc., 657 F. Supp. 380 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).

B. Right to make Phonorecords

ABKCO Music, Inc. v. Stellar Records, Inc., 96 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 1996).
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005).

C. The Right to Prepare Derivative Works

Horgan v. MacMillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986).
Micro Star, Inc v. Formgen, Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998).
Lee v. A.R.T. Co., 125 F.3d 580 (7th Cir. 1997).
Futuredontics, Inc. v. Applied Angramics, Inc., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d. 2005, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22249 (C.D.Cal. 1998).
National Geographic Society v. Classified Geographic, Inc., 27 F. Supp. 655 (D.Mass. 1939).
Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., 538 F.2d 14 (2d Cir. 1976).
Wojnarowicz v. American Family Association, 745 F. Supp.130 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

D. The Right to Distribute

Fawcett Publications, Inc v. Elliot Publishing Co., 46 F. Supp. 717 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).
Quality King Distributors, Inc. v. L’Anza Research International, Inc., 523 U.S. 135 (1998).

E. Right of Public Performance and Display

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Aveco, Inc., 800 F.2d 59 (3d Cir. 1986).
Ocasek v. Hegglund, 116 F.R.D 154 (D. Wyo. 1987).

VI. FAIR USE

A. The application of the Fair Use Doctrine to the Creation of New Works

Campbell v. Acuff- Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978).
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
Craft v. Kobler, 667 F. Supp. 120 (S.D.N.Y. 1987).
Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).
Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).

B. The application of the Fair Use Doctrine to New Technologies of Copying and Dissemination

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc., 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) (en banc), certoriari denied, 117 S. Ct.1336 (1997).
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995).
Storm Impact, Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 13 F. Supp. 2d 782 (N.D. Ill.1997).
Infinity Broadcast Corp. v. Kirkwood, 150 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1998).
Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999).

VII. ENFORCEMENT OF COPYRIGHT

A. Damages

Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505 (9th Cir. 1985).
Cream Records, Inc. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 754 F.2d 826 (9th Cir. 1985).
Engel v. Wild Oats, Inc., 644 F.Supp. 1089 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
Felter v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 1279 (1998).

B. Costs and Attorney’s Fees

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S 517 (1994).

C. Individual, Vicarious, and Contributory Liability

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984).
Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc., 76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996).
A&M Records, Inc. v. Abdallah, 948 F. Supp. 1449 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D.Cal. 1995).

D. Overenforcement: Copyright Misuse

Practice Management Information Corp. v. American Medical Association, 121 F.3d 516 (9th Cir. 1997).

VIII. FEDERAL PREEMPTION OF STATE LAW

International News Services v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918).
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel CO., 376 U.S. 225 (1964).
Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234 (1964).
Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973).
Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S 470 (1974).
Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989).
Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Association, 805 F.2d 663 (7th Cir. 1986).
National Basketball Ass’n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997).
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
Smith v. Weinstein, 578 F. Supp. 1297 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
Ehat v. Tanner, 780 F.2d 876 (10th Cir. 1985).
Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 723 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
Computer Associates International, Inc v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
Rano v. Sipa Press, Inc., 987 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1993).

IX. INTERNATIONAL DIMENSIONS OF COPYRIGHT

London Film Productions, Ltd. v. Intercontinental Communication, Inc., 580 F. Supp. 47 (S.D.N.Y. 1984).
Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers, Ltd. v. Walt Disney & Co., 145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998).
Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc., 153 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 1998).
Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe’ Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir.) (en banc), certoriari denied, 513 U.S. 1001 (1994).
Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publishers, 843 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1998).
Curb v. MCA, 898 F. Supp. 586 (M.D. Tenn. 1995).
King Features Syndicate v. Fleischer, 299 F. 533 (2d Cir. 1924).