Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Impact of <i>TC Heartland</i> on Copyright Venue
The Supreme Court sparked a seismic shift in patent litigation recently when it upset the long-standing interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the special patent venue statute. TC Heartland held that for the purposes of patent venue, the meaning of “resides” in Section 1400(b) is not supplemented by the broad definition of “resides” in the general venue provision, 28 U.S.C. §1391. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. __ (2017).
Under §1400(b), “resides” is defined once again only as the state of incorporation as originally held by the Supreme Court in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 226 (1957). This dramatic change has immediate consequences for patent litigation, with many commentators expecting a deluge of motions for transfer of venue and a rapid shift in new filings from popular fora like the Eastern District of Texas to other districts, including Northern California, Delaware, and New Jersey.
Receiving less attention thus far is §1400(b)'s sister provision governing venue for copyright claims: Section 1400(a). Unlike the patent venue statute, §1400(a) allows plaintiffs to bring suit where defendants “reside” or “may be found.” Section 1400(a)'s additional “may be found” language and the longstanding interpretation of what those terms mean will likely spare copyright holders from serious venue restrictions. Nonetheless, questions regarding the proper scope of copyright venue post-TC Heartland may very well be raised.
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?