Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
S. Ct. Resolves 'Raging' Debate Over the Use of the Laches Defense
For many years, circuit courts were split on whether and how the equitable doctrine of laches should be applied in copyright cases. The Fourth Circuit, for example, previously held that laches was never an available defense to copyright infringement, regardless of the remedy that was sought by the plaintiff. Other circuit courts, in contrast, held that laches could apply to bar an otherwise timely suit, but only in “extraordinary circumstances” or “the most compelling of cases.” Still other courts held that laches could bar injunctive relief but not damages.
The Ninth Circuit previously endorsed the most expansive application of the laches defense, allowing all relief, both legal and equitable, to be barred where: 1) the plaintiff delayed in initiating the lawsuit; 2) the delay was unreasonable; and 3) the delay resulted in prejudice. The Ninth Circuit also presumed that a claim was barred by laches where the first infringing act occurred outside the three-year statute of limitations in Section 507 of the U.S. Copyright Act.
The Supreme Court in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), recently resolved this split amongst the circuit courts in a 6-3 decision, holding that the equitable doctrine of laches could not be invoked to preclude a claim for damages within the statute of limitations for copyright cases. The Court did not, however, find that the laches defense was never available. Under the majority's reasoning, the defense can still be applied to bar injunctive relief and an accounting of the defendant's profits.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?