By When Google was initially formed in 1998, it announced ambitious plans to digitally scan all of the world’s existing books and make them accessible to users of Google’s internet search engine. By 2004, Google announced that it had partnered with several large research libraries around the world to scan their collections. Google’s plan was predictably attacked in a lawsuit by the Authors Guild and other publishers in 2005 who said that Google was infringing their copyrights. The Author’s Guild’s case was then certified as a class-action lawsuit, meaning that the millions of authors who have published a book worldwide would be part of the class represented and would be bound by the result of the case. Given the class-action certification, any settlement reached by the litigating parties had to be thoroughly vetted and approved in court. The case has been pending for several years before Second Circuit Court Judge Denny Chin under Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 05-CV-08136, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Copyright Troll Loses on Fair Use Claim
By Last month, the United States District Court in Nevada found that a non-profit that reposted in its entirety an article originally published by the Las Vegas Review-Journal did not infringe on the owner’s copyright under fair use grounds. The court’s decision was likely influenced by the copyright holder’s business as a serial litigator in copyright infringement cases. This article will discuss the fair use exception to copyright infringement specifically in light of the copyright holder’s business model.
How to Perfect a Security Interest in Intellectual Property (Copyrights, Trademarks and Patents)
by
When a creditor provides a loan to a debtor, the debtor will often grant to the creditor a security interest in the debtor’s collateral, including the debtor’s intellectual property. A creditor who receives a security interest in the debtor’s intellectual property, usually by a security agreement, must perfect the security interest so that subsequent purchasers and creditors are on notice of the creditor’s security interest in the collateral. Rules relating to the creation, attachment, perfection and priority of security interests in personal property, including “general intangibles” which include intellectual property, are governed by Division 9 (Secured Transactions) of the California Uniform Commercial Code (“Article 9”), unless federal law preempts Article 9. In order to determine where to perfect a security interest for each type of intellectual property, and since copyrights, trademarks, and patents are all governed by different statutes and case law, it is important to review and analyze not only Article 9 but also the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. (the “Copyright Act”), the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, 15 § 1051 et. seq. (the “Lanham Act”), and the Patent Act of 1952, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. (the “Patent Act”).
“Fair Use”: An Affirmative Defense to “Copyright Infringement”
by A copyright is a form of protection afforded to owners of “original works of authorship” for the owner’s literary, musical, artistic and other works. Owners of copyrights have a number of exclusive rights, including the right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies, to prepare derivative works based upon the work, and to distribute copies of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership. One who uses another’s copyrighted material without permission from the copyright owner may be liable for copyright infringement, unless that person can demonstrate that the use was “fair use,” which is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement.
Continue Reading “Fair Use”: An Affirmative Defense to “Copyright Infringement”
Jurisdiction in Declaratory Judgment Actions – Federal Circuit Resolves Open Question
by In ABB Inc. v. Cooper Industries, LLC, 97 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit resolved an open question concerning subject matter jurisdiction of declaratory judgment actions based on patent infringement.
Cooper Industries owned several patents covering electrical equipment containing dielectric fluid. ABB manufactured a type of dielectric fluid called “Biotemp.” Cooper sued ABB for patent infringement. Cooper and ABB later settled the case, and Cooper granted ABB a non-exclusive license to make, have made, sell, or import the Biotemp product. The license stated that it did not include any rights of third parties to make the Biotemp product. In the license, ABB admitted that Cooper’s patents were valid and that the claims of the patents covered the Biotemp product.