Remove 2000 Remove Copyright Infringement Remove Due Diligence Remove Licensing
article thumbnail

Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy: Supreme Court Allows Retrospective Copyright Damages Beyond 3 Years Based on Discovery Rule

IP Intelligence

Warner) to license certain works from the Music Specialist catalog, including “Jam the Box,” which was interpolated into Flo Rida’s hit song “In the Ayer,” which went on to sell millions of copies. Nealy sought damages for alleged copyright infringement dating back to 2008 – 10 years before he filed suit. 1] The U.S.

Music 52
article thumbnail

The Ninth Circuit Reaffirms the Discovery Rule for the Copyright Act’s Statute of Limitations — Starz v. MGM (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

In so holding, the Ninth Circuit created (or widened) a circuit split with the Second Circuit, which previously held that even under the discovery rule, damages for copyright infringement are limited to “a three-year lookback period from the time a suit is filed.” Scholastic, Inc. , 3d 39, 52 (2d Cir. Petrella , 572 U.S. 3d 39 (2d Cir.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Fixes One Problem with the Copyright Statute of Limitations, But Punts Another — Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

If the Supreme Court upholds the discovery rule for copyright cases, or simply declines to address it, the decision will leave copyright defendants exposed to very large awards for years of infringing conduct (as they have been everywhere but the Second Circuit). 549, 555 (2000). Petrella , 572 U.S. Wood , 528 U.S.

Music 96
article thumbnail

Legal Implications of IPR Protection ‘In The Cloud’: an Indian Analysis

IIPRD

Copyright laws, for instance, vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. What constitutes copyright infringement in one country may not be in another. 1] , t he cloud service provider was not made liable even after abetting the infringement. “The 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India). [1] Thus, in Tiffany(NJ) Inc.

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (April 29- May 05)

SpicyIP

Novartis appeal and the MHC’s decision in Microsoft Technology Licensing v. The MHC in Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC vs Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs clarified the role of the ‘person skilled in the art’ (PSITA) in determining non-obviousness. Controller of Patents. Anything we are missing out on?