14 Cited authorities

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,827 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc.
788 F.2d 151 (3d Cir. 1986) Cited 549 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion
I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver
74 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 307 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that full payment was not a condition precedent when the licensee received the copyrighted drawings after tendering only half the required payment
Effects Associates, Inc. v. Cohen
908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) Cited 293 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an implied grant of a nonexclusive license to use a copyrighted work precludes a copyright infringement claim
Brownstein v. Lindsay
742 F.3d 55 (3d Cir. 2014) Cited 47 times
Holding that, while courts may invalidate underlying copyrights, the Copyright Act gives federal courts no authority to cancel copyright registrations with the U.S. Copyright Office
MacLean v. Wm. M. Mercer-Meidinger-Hansen
952 F.2d 769 (3d Cir. 1991) Cited 78 times
Holding delivery of a copy of the work is only one factor to find an implied license, but not articulating any of the other factors
Weinstein Co. v. Smokewood Entertainment Group
664 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 31 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Weinstein, the plaintiff brought a breach of contract action and argued that an email exchange between it and the defendant copyright co-owner codified a prior oral agreement to transfer exclusive distribution rights and satisfied § 204(a).
Am. Bd. of Internal Med. v. Von Muller
540 F. App'x 103 (3d Cir. 2013) Cited 15 times
Finding that a Court "may conduct an hour-by-hour analysis or it may reduce the requested hours with an across-the-board cut"
Lewis v. Smith
361 F. App'x 421 (3d Cir. 2010) Cited 16 times
Holding that a dismissal "under Rule 12(b) is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes"
Pace v. Schwartz
680 F. Supp. 2d 591 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) Cited 5 times
Noting that an "injunction is a remedy and not a separate cause of action," and that "the fact that plaintiffs have pleaded their request for injunctive relief as a separate claim rather than as part of the prayer for relief in no way disentitles them to seek injunctive relief"
Rule 54 - Judgment; Costs
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 Cited 41,232 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"
Section 505 - Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees
17 U.S.C. § 505 Cited 2,974 times 70 Legal Analyses
Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases

MARINO v. USHER

14 Cited authorities

Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988

Holding that remand is appropriate when a district court has failed to specify its reasons for denying a Rule 11 motion

Holding that full payment was not a condition precedent when the licensee received the copyrighted drawings after tendering only half the required payment

Holding that an implied grant of a nonexclusive license to use a copyrighted work precludes a copyright infringement claim

Holding that, while courts may invalidate underlying copyrights, the Copyright Act gives federal courts no authority to cancel copyright registrations with the U.S. Copyright Office

Holding delivery of a copy of the work is only one factor to find an implied license, but not articulating any of the other factors

In Weinstein, the plaintiff brought a breach of contract action and argued that an email exchange between it and the defendant copyright co-owner codified a prior oral agreement to transfer exclusive distribution rights and satisfied § 204(a).

Finding that a Court "may conduct an hour-by-hour analysis or it may reduce the requested hours with an across-the-board cut"

Holding that a dismissal "under Rule 12(b) is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes"

Noting that an "injunction is a remedy and not a separate cause of action," and that "the fact that plaintiffs have pleaded their request for injunctive relief as a separate claim rather than as part of the prayer for relief in no way disentitles them to seek injunctive relief"

Holding party seeking fees may additionally seek "nontaxable expenses"

Granting the district court discretion to award attorney's fees to the prevailing party in copyright cases