Medimmune, Inc. v. GenenTech, Inc.
549 U.S. 118 (2007) Cited 2,534 times 90 Legal AnalysesHolding "the phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the types of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III"
Ellison v. Robertson
357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 654 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"
Island Software Computer v. Microsoft
413 F.3d 257 (2d Cir. 2005) Cited 309 timesHolding that a district court is “entitled to take judicial notice of . . . federal copyright registrations, as published in the Copyright Office's registry”
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation
334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 207 times 2 Legal AnalysesHolding that a defendant who "disabled itself from doing anything to prevent infringement" did not reasonably implement a repeat infringer policy
Corbis Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc.
351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004) Cited 70 times 1 Legal AnalysesHolding that even though Amazon.com "may have encouraged third parties to use the Zshops platform and provided the tools to assist them, that does not disqualify it from immunity under § 230 because the Zshops vendor ultimately decided what information to put on its site."
Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office Inc.
839 F.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 1987) Cited 63 timesHolding federal court had subject matter jurisdiction over claim for copyright infringement seeking an injunction, "damages and profits," costs and attorney's fees under Copyright Act
Team Play, Inc. v. Boyer
391 F. Supp. 2d 695 (N.D. Ill. 2005) Cited 7 timesAddressing issue of validity of registration at summary judgment stage
Winfield Collection Ltd. v. Gemmy Industries Corp.
311 F. Supp. 2d 611 (E.D. Mich. 2004) Cited 5 timesCIVIL CASE NO. 02-40249 March 30, 2004 OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, (2) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT II OF DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM, AND (4) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON COUNT II OF DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM PAUL GADOLA, Senior District Judge This is a copyright infringement action. See 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Before the Court is Defendant's
Gribin v. Hammer Galleries, a Div. of Hammer Holding, Inc.
793 F. Supp. 233 (C.D. Cal. 1992) Cited 10 timesNo. 92-0411 RG (Sx). May 7, 1992. David Paul Steiner of Steiner Saffer, a Professional Law Corp., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff Murray Gribin. Sheldon M. Jaffe and Robert E. Young of Law Offices of Sheldon M. Jaffe, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants Hammer Holdings, Inc. and Jules Brassner. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS OR, ALTERNATIVELY, TO CHANGE VENUE GADBOIS, District Judge. This action came on for hearing before the Court, Honorable Richard A. Gadbois, Jr., presiding, on April 20
Section 411 - Registration and civil infringement actions
17 U.S.C. § 411 Cited 1,477 times 132 Legal AnalysesIn § 411(a)'s first sentence, "registration" would mean the claimant's act of filing an application, while in the section's second sentence, "registration" would entail the Register's review of an application.
Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online
17 U.S.C. § 512 Cited 570 times 185 Legal AnalysesDenying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"