Holding: In this copyright and trademark infringement suit relating to plaintiff's Cigar Aficionado magazine and trademarks, the U.S. District Court denied defendant website operators' motion to dismiss. Defendants, charged for displaying on their website both the protected marks and a recent issue of the magazine, sought to dismiss the suit for lack of personal jurisdiction and under the doctrine of fair use. The District Court rejected both arguments, stating that defendants exhibited minimum contacts with New York, such as transacting steady business with New York residents via their interactive website. With respect to defendants' "fair use" argument, the District Court found that there were issues of material fact as to the adverse impact of the defendants’ use of the copyrighted works on the market for the plaintiff’s product. For these reasons, the District Court concluded that defendants’ claim of fair use cannot be decided on a motion to dismiss. More...

Holding: In this appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Federal Claims' ("CFC") dismissal of the claims of Blueport Co., LLC ("Blueport") against the United States Air Force as a government defendant. Blueport brought claims of copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 ("DMCA") against the United States Air Force for having infringed on Blueport's copyrighted software. The CFC dismissed Blueport's action for lack of jurisdiction because the CFC held that the government had not waived its sovereign immunity under 28 U.S.C. Section 1498(b). On appeal, the Federal Circuit sustained the CFC's findings, and rejected Blueport’s argument that the government needed to prove that its suit fell under one of the three exceptions to sovereign immunity stated under Section 1498(b). According to the Federal Circuit, the CFC lacks jurisdiction over any copyright infringement claim within the scope of the Section 1498(b) provisos. With regard to Blueport's DMCA claim, the Federal Circuit likewise found that the Air Force similarly had not waived its sovereign immunity for DMCA claims. In so doing, the Federal Circuit cited the rule that a waiver of sovereign immunity cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed. More...

Holding: In a copyright dispute regarding the fictional novel and story "Lassie Come Home" ("Lassie Works"), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the daughter of its author, defendant Winifred Knight Mewborn ("Mewborn"), in her controversy with Lassie Television, Inc. ("LTI"), the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff Classic Media, Inc. ("Classic"). Each party had earlier filed for declaratory relief as to their respective copyright interests in the Lassie Works, works that were in their renewal copyright terms in their 1978 assignment of rights from Mewborn to LTI. The lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California , had sided with Classic, holding that Mewborn had already relinquished her termination right, and the 1996 Notice of Termination was ineffective because Mewborn no longer had any interest in the copyright transferred via the 1976 and 1978 assignments (the "1976 Assignment" and "1978 Assignment", respectively) . On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for Classic, stating that Mewborn did not waive her termination rights in the 1978 assignment. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit found that the 1996 Termination Notice was effective, and that any rights assigned to LTI by the 1976 Assignment reverted to Mewborn as of the effective termination date, May 1, 1998. The Ninth Circuit thus directed the District Court to enter partial summary judgment in favor of Mewborn on her claim for declaratory relief. More...

Holding: In this infringement dispute over plaintiff-appellee Eagle Services Corp.'s ("Eagle") copyrighted safety manual, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana's decision, and remanded the case to compute and award reasonable attorneys' fees to defendant-appellant H20 Industrial Services, Inc. ("H2O"). Eagle sued H20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for copyright infringement for the use of Eagle's safety manual. H20 prevailed in the District Court on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, but appealed the District Court's refusal to grant attorneys fees. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit overturned the District Court's finding that the suit was not frivolous and was not filed in bad faith. The rule in a copyright case, under Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 505, is that a prevailing defendant receives an award of attorneys' fees unless the plaintiff shows its lawsuit was neither frivolous or filed in bad faith. Here, Eagle failed to demonstrate the validity of its suit against H2O and was ordered to pay attorneys' fees. More...