You searched for - IP UPDATE

Results for ""

“Conquesting”: Use of Rival’s Name as Keyword Search Term Isn’t Actionable Under Lanham Act

by Karen Gover | Nov 7, 2024 | Trademarks

Noting how rare it is for trademark infringement cases to be decided on summary judgment, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment finding that the plaintiff law firm failed to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion by virtue of the defendant’s purchase of a keyword search term. Lerner & Rowe PC v. Brown, Engstrand & Shely, LLC, et al., Case No. 23-16060 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2024) (Desai, de Alba, JJ.; Chen, Dist. J, sitting by designation) (Desai, J., concurring).

The parties in this matter are rival personal injury law firms based in Arizona. Lerner & Rowe, PC, is the larger of the two firms. It has 19 offices and has spent more than $100 million promoting its brand and trademarks in the state. Brown, Engstrand & Shely, LLC, does business as The Accident Law Group (ALG). From 2015 to 2021, ALG engaged in an internet advertising strategy called “conquesting,” whereby companies promote themselves to potential customers who search for a competitor on the internet. ALG purchased the term “Lerner & Rowe” as a keyword search term so that whenever someone searched for that term, ALG’s advertisements would appear near the top of the search results list. The ALG advertisements themselves never included the term “Lerner & Rowe.”

In 2021 Lerner & Rowe filed a complaint alleging federal and state trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims. In 2023 the district court granted summary judgment in favor of ALG as to the trademark infringement and unjust enrichment claims but denied summary judgment on the unfair competition claims. ALG moved for reconsideration, and the district court subsequently granted summary judgment as to all the claims. Lerner & Rowe appealed.

Because there was no dispute that Lerner & Rowe had a protectable interest in its marks, the Ninth Circuit’s trademark infringement analysis focused on assessing the likelihood of consumer confusion. At issue here was “initial interest confusion,” confusion that arises when an alleged infringer uses a competitor’s mark to direct attention to its own product. The Ninth Circuit used the four-factor test articulated in its 2011 decision in Network Automation v. Advanced Sys. Concepts to analyze likelihood of confusion in a keyword advertising context:

Strength of the mark.
Evidence of actual confusion.
Type of goods and degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser.
Labeling and appearance of the advertisements and the surrounding context on the screen displaying the results page.

Other less relevant factors include “the proximity of the goods, similarity of the marks, marketing channels used, defendant’s intent in selecting the mark, and likelihood of expansion of the product lines.”

The Ninth Circuit found, and ALG did not dispute, that Lerner & Rowe’s mark was strong, but the Court concluded that the other three factors favored ALG. As to evidence of actual confusion, Lerner & Rowe offered 236 phone calls received by ALG in which the caller mentioned Lerner & Rowe by name when asked [...]

Continue Reading

Equivalence Requires Element-by-Element Proof With Linking Argument

by Tessa Kroll | Nov 7, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court determination that a patent owner had not provided the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence under the doctrine of equivalents. NexStep, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, Case No. 2022-1815 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (Chen, Taranto, JJ.) (Reyna, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In his dissent, Judge Reyna criticized the majority for ignoring the totality of the evidence presented by the patent owner and imposing a new rule requiring patentees to always present expert testimony to prove infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

NexStep owns a patent directed to a “concierge device” for assisting users with obtaining customer support for smart devices. The claims are directed to a concierge device that initiates a technical support session in response to “a single action” (i.e., a single button press) by a user. After the claimed “single action,” the concierge device conveys consumer device identification information for the product at issue, identifies an appropriate technical support team for the product, and causes the home gateway to initiate a support session for the device and forward the consumer device information during the session.

NexStep sued Comcast for patent infringement, asserting that three tools in Comcast’s mobile smartphone application infringed the concierge device patent: Xfinity Assistant, Troubleshooting Card, and Diagnostic Check. Each of these tools assists users with troubleshooting a given device in response to the user pressing a series of buttons on a smartphone’s display. At trial, NexStep argued that pressing a series of buttons literally met the single action limitation because a single action could comprise a series of steps. By way of illustration, NexStep’s expert explained that throwing a baseball – a single action – required multiple steps: “[W]hen you throw a baseball, you pick it up, you orient it, you get it in your palm, you throw it.”

The jury returned a verdict of no literal infringement but found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Comcast moved for judgment as a matter of law, which the district court granted after finding that NexStep had failed to offer the “particularized testimony and linking argument” required to demonstrate equivalence. NexStep appealed.

The Federal Circuit emphasized that the doctrine of equivalents provides a “limited exception” to the principle that the claim defines the scope of the patentee’s exclusivity rights, and that a finding under the doctrine of equivalents is “exceptional.” To guard against overbroad applications of this exception, the Court’s precedent imposes specific evidentiary requirements necessary to prove infringement under the doctrine. The patent owner must provide proof on an element-by-element basis and from the perspective of someone skilled in the art, “for example through testimony of experts or others versed in the technology; by documents . . . and . . . by the disclosures of the prior art.” Finally, the patent owner must provide “particularized testimony and linking argument as to the insubstantiality of the differences between the claimed invention and the [...]

Continue Reading

Data Mining for AI Systems Training Permitted Under German Law

by Paulina Simons, LL.M. | Nov 7, 2024 | Copyrights, EU Update

In a landmark decision, a German district court recently decided that copying images to create a data set that can potentially be used for training generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems does not infringe German copyright law. Robert Kneschke v. Large Scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network, Case No. GRUR-RS 2024, 25458 (Hamburg District Court Sept. 27, 2024)

The nonprofit Large Scale Artificial Intelligence Open Network (LAION) created a data set containing 5.85 billion image-text pairs publicly available on the internet. This data set can be used to train generative AI systems. For the creation of the data set, LAION accessed a preexisting data set with uniform resource locators (URLs) referencing images and their descriptions. First, LAION extracted the URLs and downloaded the referenced images, including a copyrighted work by photographer Robert Kneschke, even though a reservation of use against web scraping was declared on a subpage of the website. LAION analyzed the image descriptions with a software application. The application excluded image-text pairs where text and image content did not match sufficiently. LAION only added validated image-text pairs to its data mining.

Robert Kneschke claimed copyright infringement based on LAION’s download of his images.

The district court explained that LAION’s mere downloading of Kneschke’s images did not encroach on his right of reproduction under German copyright law. The district court further held that LAION’s actions were justified under and in compliance with Section 60d(1) of the German Act on Copyright and Related Rights (UrhG) – a scientific research exception.

Section 60d(1) authorizes reproduction of text and data mining for scientific purposes by research organizations. The district court clarified that the creation of the data set was data mining, even if the purpose of the creation was AI training. As the district court explained, analysis of an image to compare it with a preexisting description is analysis for the purpose of obtaining information. The district court held that even the creation of the data set, which could form the basis for training AI systems, should be regarded as a scientific purpose (i.e., activity in pursuit of new knowledge irrespective of an immediate knowledge gain or subsequent research success). The creation of the data set was found to be a fundamental step for the purpose of using the data set to gain knowledge later. Of note, the data set was published free of charge and thus also made available to researchers involved in AI. According to the district court, because the training and development of AI systems (even by commercial enterprises) is still scientific research, it was irrelevant that the data set could additionally be used by commercial enterprises to train or develop their AI systems.

Although not legally relevant to the outcome, the district court considered the reservation of use declared in natural language (English) on a subpage to be machine-readable and therefore effective.

Practice Note: This judgment will have far-reaching implications for the use of copyright as a barrier to training AI systems.

Can’t Stop the FRAND: Navigating SEP Licensing Disputes

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Nov 7, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s decision to deny an antisuit injunction prohibiting a patent owner from enforcing injunctions that it obtained in Columbia and Brazil on standard essential patents (SEPs). Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, et al. v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Case No. 24-1515 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2024) (Prost, Lourie, Reyna, JJ.)

Lenovo and Ericsson entered into negotiations to cross-license their SEPs to each other. SEPs are patents declared essential to complying with a technical standard. Because SEPs by definition must be practiced to comply with a given standard, SEP holders wield significant power over standard implementers during licensing negotiations. Standard setting organizations therefore typically have an intellectual property policy under which SEP holders agree to license their SEPs on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. Here, the parties agreed that the FRAND commitment was a contract, governed by French law, that each party could enforce against the other, and that the FRAND commitment included an obligation to negotiate in good faith over licenses to SEPs.

After the parties were unsuccessful in reaching agreement, Ericsson sued Lenovo in US district court alleging that Lenovo infringed four of Ericsson’s US SEPs related to the 5G wireless communication standard. Ericsson also alleged that Lenovo breached its FRAND commitment by failing to negotiate in good faith and asked the district court to determine a FRAND rate for a global cross-license between the parties. Lenovo counterclaimed, alleging that Ericsson infringed four of Lenovo’s 5G US SEPs and asking for a similar outcome. Lenovo also asked the district court to enter an antisuit injunction prohibiting Ericsson from enforcing the preliminary injunctions Ericsson obtained in Colombia and Brazil that prohibited Lenovo from infringing Ericsson’s Columbian and Brazilian 5G SEPs. The district court denied Lenovo’s motion, following the antisuit injunction framework in the Ninth Circuit’s 2012 decision in Microsoft v. Motorola. The district court concluded that the instant suit was not dispositive of the foreign action, which was a threshold requirement to enter such an injunction. Lenovo appealed.

The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court’s determination, finding that a party with a FRAND commitment must negotiate in good faith over a license to its SEPs before it pursues injunctive relief based on those SEPs. Interpreting the “dispositive” requirement, the Court concluded that the “requirement can be met even though a foreign antisuit injunction would resolve only a foreign injunction (and not the entire foreign proceeding), and even though the relevant resolution depends on the potential that one party’s view of the facts or law prevails in the domestic suit.” Here, the Court found that the requirement was met because the “FRAND commitment precludes Ericsson from pursuing SEP-based injunctive relief unless it has first complied with the commitment’s obligation to negotiate in good faith over a license to those SEPs.” If the district court were to determine that Ericsson had not complied with that obligation, that determination would dictate the impropriety of Ericsson pursuing SEP-based injunctive relief. Accordingly, the [...]

Continue Reading

Promises, Promises: Covenant Not to Sue for Patent Infringement Includes Downstream Users

by Karen Gover | Oct 31, 2024 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed that a district court did not err in applying ordinary rules of contract construction to a covenant not to sue and properly found that under the patent exhaustion doctrine, the covenant encompassed downstream users. Fuel Automation Station, LLC v. Energera Inc., Case Nos. 23-1123; -1358 (10th Cir. Oct. 21, 2024) (Carson, Rossman, Federico, JJ.)

Fuel Automation Station (FAS) and Energera compete in the manufacture of automated fuel delivery equipment and related services. Energera holds patents related to its fuel delivery equipment. In 2016 and 2018, Energera sued FAS, alleging that it infringed two of its patents. The parties resolved the suits with a single settlement agreement in 2019. The agreement described the scope of the patent rights at issue and provided mutual covenants not to sue.

Less than a year later, FAS contracted with a Canadian corporation to operate its fuel automation equipment. Energera sued the Canadian corporation for infringement of one of its patents. FAS intervened, then separately sued Energera seeking a declaration that the covenant not to sue authorized FAS to sell or lease its own equipment and, therefore, the patent exhaustion doctrine prohibited Energera from suing downstream users, such as the Canadian corporation. FAS also brought two breach of contract claims asserting that Energera violated the settlement agreement and its included covenant since it was prohibited from suing the Canadian corporation for downstream use or from suing or “otherwise engag[ing]” FAS in legal proceedings.

FAS moved for summary judgment on its declaratory judgment count, which the district court granted. However, the court denied both parties’ later motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the settlement agreement covered the asserted patent, finding that an ambiguity in the agreement created genuine issues of material fact. A jury subsequently found that the agreement did cover the asserted patent and that Energera breached the covenant. Energera appealed.

After first determining that the district court’s summary judgment ruling was an appealable legal ruling on the issue of the scope of the covenant, the Tenth Circuit found that the district court correctly interpreted the covenant to include downstream users. In the covenant, Energera promised “not to sue [FAS] or otherwise engage [FAS] in any domestic or foreign legal or administrative proceeding” related to the Patent Rights. Citing dictionary definitions of “engage” in its analysis, the Tenth Circuit found that the term “otherwise engage” reasonably could show the parties’ intent to prohibit Energera from suing FAS’s downstream users. The Court then invoked the patent exhaustion doctrine, which it called “the brooding omnipresence in the sky of patent law.” The Court explained that if a patent holder promises not to sue an entity for patent infringement when the entity sells or leases an item, “the doctrine recognizes an inherent promise not to sue downstream users of those items.” Otherwise, the Court pointed out, no reasonable customer would want to buy or lease a patented item from an authorized seller.

As to whether the [...]

Continue Reading

Bill Proposes to Shed Light on Third-Party Litigation Interests via Mandatory Disclosures

by Anisa Noorassa | Oct 31, 2024 | Uncategorized

On October 4, 2024, US Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI) introduced HR 9922, the Litigation Transparency Act of 2024. If enacted, the act would require the disclosure of third parties receiving payment in civil lawsuits. The bill is intended to shed light on civil litigation funded by undisclosed third-party interests.

In a press release on his website, Representative Issa stated that the legislation is intended to increase transparency and target “serious and continuing abuses in our litigation system.” The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, among other organizations, submitted statements of support for the bill. However, opponents of similar measures have argued that third-party money for litigation expenses can promote access to justice and level the playing field.

The text of the legislation can be found here. If enacted, the bill would require that each party disclose in writing to the court the names of any persons having a “right to receive any payment or thing of value that is contingent on the outcome of the civil action,” as well as any agreement creating such a right. The bill includes an exception where the right to receive payment is due to the repayment of a loan.

The bill has been referred to the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

Practice Note: Significant legislative action on the bill during the short remainder of the current Congress is unlikely. IP Update will track the progress of the bill if it is introduced in the next Congress.

Final Rule on DMCA Grants Circumvention Exemptions

by Paul Devinsky | Oct 31, 2024 | Copyrights

On October 25, 2024, the Librarian of Congress Carla Hayden adopted a final rule granting exemptions to a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provision that prohibits circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted works. The new final rule went into effect October 28, 2024.

In 1998, as part of the DMCA, Congress added § 1201 to the Copyright Laws (Title 17) to provide greater legal protection for copyright owners in the then-emerging digital environment. Section 1201 generally made it unlawful to “circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to” a copyrighted work. Since then, every three years, the Librarian of Congress (US Copyright Office), upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, has been authorized to adopt temporary exemptions specific to classes of copyrighted works that will be in effect for the ensuing three‐year period.

Now, pursuant to § 1201 and based upon recommendation of the Register, the Copyright Office has renewed all but one of the existing exemptions, adopted a new exemption to vehicle operational data for computer programs, and expanded the existing exemptions to text and data mining of audiovisual and literary works and exemptions regarding computer programs for repair of commercial industrial equipment.

The Copyright Office recommended adopting or expanding exemptions for the following classes:

[For] Classes 3(a) and 3(b) [exemptions]: Expansion of the exemption for audiovisual and literary works, for the purpose of text and data mining for scholarly research and teaching by allowing researchers affiliated with other nonprofit institutions of higher education to access corpora for independent research and by modifying the provisions concerning security measures and viewing the contents of copyrighted works within a corpus.
[For] Class 5 [exemptions]: New exemption for computer programs that control retail-level commercial food preparation equipment for purposes of diagnosis, maintenance, and repair.
[For] Class 7 [exemptions]: New exemption for computer programs, for purposes of accessing, storing, and sharing operational data, including diagnostic and telematics data, of motorized land vehicles, marine vessels, and commercial and agricultural vehicles or vessels.

Regarding the Classes 3(a) and 3(b) exemptions, the final rule explains that institutions can “provide outside researchers with credentials for security and authentication to use a corpus that is hosted on its servers but cannot disseminate a copy of a corpus (or copyrighted works included therein) to outside researchers or give outside researchers the ability to download, make copies of, or distribute any copyrighted works.”

Regarding the Class 5 exemptions, the Register agreed that “proponents sufficiently showed . . . adverse effects on . . . proposed noninfringing uses” of computer programs “related to retail-level commercial food preparation” but otherwise declined to extend the exemption to software-enabled industrial devices.

Regarding the Class 7 exemption, the Register determined that “the prohibition on circumvention adversely affects the ability of lawful owners and lessees, or those acting on their behalf, to access, store, and share operational and telematics data, which are likely to be noninfringing.”

The Copyright Office declined to add “an exemption for the [...]

Continue Reading

Pre-Markman Claim Construction Is OK, Within Limits

by Sydney E. McDermott | Oct 31, 2024 | Patents

In an appeal stemming from the denial of a preliminary injunction and dismissal of the complaint, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit clarified its precedent and explained that a district court may construe claims at the motion to dismiss Rule 12(b)(6) stage, but only to the extent necessary to decide the motion. UTTO Inc. v. Metrotech Corp., Case No. 23-1435 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2024) (Prost, Taranto, Hughes, JJ.)

UTTO sued Metrotech in the US District Court for the Northern District of California for patent infringement and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage under California law. UTTO also moved for a preliminary injunction. The asserted patent describes and claims methods for detecting and identifying “buried assets,” which refers to underground utility lines. The district court denied the preliminary injunction because of UTTO’s failure to show a likelihood of success on the merits for infringement based on the district court’s construction. The district court adopted a construction of the term “group” as requiring at least two data points per buried asset. The district court then dismissed the original complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted but allowed UTTO to amend, explaining that infringement of the claims as construed at the preliminary injunction stage was not pled.

UTTO then filed an amended complaint, which the district court also dismissed, noting that UTTO failed to plead facts supporting infringement of other limitations under the claim construction issued at the preliminary injunction stage. The district court again granted UTTO leave to amend, which UTTO did. But the district court dismissed that third complaint as well, this time with prejudice, citing the claim construction in its order at the preliminary injunction stage.

On appeal, UTTO (citing 2018 Federal Circuit precedent Nalco v. Chem-Mod) challenged the district court’s claim construction and its reliance on a claim construction in an order denying summary judgment to dismiss a complaint. The Federal Circuit explained that claim construction by a district court “to resolve . . . particular claim construction issues in [a] case” may be necessary and is not categorically barred at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage. The Court explained that there is a “logical relationship of claim construction” between “infringement and the normal function of courts deciding whether to grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” An infringement analysis first requires an analysis of the scope and meaning of the claims asserted and then the “properly construed claims” are compared to the accused device or method. Often, claims are construed based on intrinsic evidence alone, which the Federal Circuit concluded “is not different in kind from the interpretation of other legal standards, which is proper and routine in ruling on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6).” As an example, the Court cited its routine dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) in connection with motions under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The Federal Circuit cautioned that not all claim construction issues need to be construed at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, but only those issues necessary to decide a [...]

Continue Reading

IRS Issues Final Rules on Intangible Property Repatriations

by Brian Moore | Oct 31, 2024 | Uncategorized

With the allure of tax incentives for foreign derived intangible income and an increase in foreign audits scrutinizing transfer pricing, bringing intellectual property (IP) back to the United States is increasingly attractive. Newly issued final IP repatriation regulations make the tax consequences of repatriating previously offshored IP more predictable and eliminate the risk of potential double taxation.

On October 10, 2024, the US Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released final regulations under § 367(d) regarding the tax consequences of certain IP repatriations. The final regulations largely follow the proposed regulations issued in May 2023, with minor modifications. These regulations apply to IP repatriations that occur on or after October 10, 2024.

Background on § 367(d)

Section 367(d) and the corresponding regulations were designed to prevent US companies from avoiding US tax by transferring valuable IP to foreign affiliates. Generally, when a US person transfers IP to a foreign corporation in a nonrecognition transaction, the transfer is treated as a sale in exchange for payments contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the IP. This means that the US transferor is deemed to receive annual royalty payments over the useful life of the IP, reflecting the income that would have been generated by the IP.

Prior to the release of the latest regulations, the § 367(d) regime provided “subsequent transfer” rules that could result in an immediate income inclusion of the remaining deemed royalty amount if the US transferor transferred the stock of the transferee foreign corporation, or the transferee foreign corporation transferred the IP. However, the prior regulations did not clearly address the tax implications when the IP was repatriated back to the US, leading to uncertainty and potential double taxation. The final regulations clarify the treatment of repatriated IP under § 367(d). The regulations are generally taxpayer friendly and are expected to reduce the tax burden on US companies repatriating IP.

Key Provisions of the Final Regulations

Termination of Annual Royalty Inclusions

The final regulations terminate the deemed royalty inclusions when the IP is repatriated and certain conditions are met. The US transferor is no longer required to include deemed royalty payments in its income if the transferee foreign corporation transfers the IP to a qualified domestic person (QDP), which could be the original US transferor, a successor US transferor, or a related US person, provided the person is subject to US tax. To benefit from the termination of deemed royalty inclusions, the US transferor also must comply with specific reporting requirements, including providing detailed information about the repatriation transaction to the IRS.

Gain Recognized by the US Transferor

The US transferor must recognize gain equal to the fair market value of the IP at the time of repatriation. The amount of gain recognized by the US transferor depends on whether the IP is “transferred basis property.” If the IP is transferred basis property, the gain recognized is the amount the foreign corporation would have recognized if its adjusted basis [...]

Continue Reading

If Provider Knew Product Would Be Used to Infringe, It Is a Contributor

by Lois D. Mermelstein | Oct 24, 2024 | Copyrights

In a case brought by a group of record labels against an internet service provider (ISP) for contributory copyright infringement of more than 1,400 songs, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the provider, which knew how its product would be used by subscribers, could be contributorily liable for its subscribers’ actions, but that because the record companies registered albums – not individual songs – with the US Copyright Office, statutory copyright damages were not available for each infringed song. UMG Recordings, Inc. et al. v. Grande Communications Networks, LLC, Case No. 23-50162 (5th Cir. Oct. 9, 2024) (Higginson, Higginbotham, Stewart, JJ.)

The plaintiffs are a group of major record labels, while the defendant, Grande Communications Network, is a large ISP. To combat copyright infringement among individuals using peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent, the plaintiffs used a third-party company, Rightscorp, to identify infringing conduct by engaging with BitTorrent users, documenting that conduct, and using the information to notify ISPs of its findings so that the ISPs could take appropriate action. However, for nearly seven years Grande did not terminate subscribers for copyright infringement but merely notified them of a complaint. In the district court, a jury found Grande liable for contributory copyright infringement of more than 1,400 of the plaintiffs’ sound recordings. The jury found that the infringement was willful and awarded nearly $47 million in statutory damages. Grande appealed.

The Fifth Circuit explained that to prove direct infringement by Grande’s subscribers, the plaintiffs had to show “(1) that Plaintiffs own or have exclusive control over valid copyrights and (2) that those copyrights were directly infringed by Grande’s subscribers.” To meet the elements of secondary liability for subscribers’ conduct, “Plaintiffs had to demonstrate (3) that Grande had knowledge of its subscribers’ infringing activity and (4) that Grande induced, caused, or materially contributed to that activity.”

In analyzing the fourth element, the Fifth Circuit noted that previous Supreme Court cases involving a single moment of sale (Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios (1984) and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster (2005)) did not control because the plaintiffs’ theory of liability was “not based on Grande’s knowledge about its subscribers’ likely future activities after the moment of sale, but rather on Grande’s knowledge of its subscribers’ actual infringements based on its ongoing relationship with those subscribers.” Further, unlike Twitter v. Taamneh (2023) (a case in which family members of an ISIS terrorist attack victim alleged that US social media companies aided and abetted ISIS by permitting the group’s members to use the platforms for ISIS’s purposes), here the “direct nexus between Grande’s conduct and the tort at issue permits an inference that Grande’s knowing provision of internet services to infringing subscribers was actionable.”

The district court’s jury instructions – that Grande could be contributorily liable if Grande could have “take[n] basic measures to prevent further damages to copyrighted works, yet intentionally continue[d] to provide access to infringing sound recordings,” were not erroneous, as Grande had access to [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS