Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the context of a copyright case, a defendant's prior bad acts and prior conduct are more useful to a plaintiff than is typical in civil litigation.
In the context of a copyright case, a defendant’s prior bad acts and prior conduct are more useful to a plaintiff than is typical in civil litigation. In many instances, copyright infringement lawsuits are brought against defendants who have been sued before for infringement, or related misconduct, or who have been the subject of allegations or informal complaints, or who simply have experience in copyright matters. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), the use to which prior bad acts and conduct may be put by a plaintiff in a regular civil case is limited, and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 balances the probative value of the evidence against prejudice. In copyright cases, however, as a practical matter, the plaintiff has somewhat more latitude, and such evidence may serve several distinct objectives. A defendant’s history, whether related to the misconduct at issue or not, may be used by a savvy plaintiff in three ways: 1) to establish willfulness, and thus both enhance the statutory damages award and obtain attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act; 2) to establish knowledge, and thereby make a case (where appropriate) for contributory infringement; and 3) as a basis for injunctive relief.
By Karen Hoffman Lent and Kenneth Schwartz
The DOJ’s intervention, and the judge’s ultimate decision, has exposed tensions between the DOJ and FTC, and within the FTC itself, and public scrutiny is far from over as the case heads to the Ninth Circuit on appeal.
By Nicole D. Galli
In the last five years, the courts have instead began wading into policy setting without the tools and resources to fully consider all the issues and various interests. Thus, the recent congressional efforts to consider these questions is welcome and, frankly, overdue.
By Scott Graham
Fifteen states had argued that they and their public universities shouldn’t have to expose their patents to validity review at the patent trial and appeal board.
By Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Abhishek Bapna
Federal Circuit Finds District Court Erred in Analysis of Motivation to Combine Prior Art References, Yet Affirms Ultimate Conclusion of Non-obviousness Due to the Lack of a Reasonable Expectation of Success
Federal Circuit Rules that Issue Preclusion Bars a Party from Arguing in an Appeal of an Inter Partes Review Decision an Issue Previously Decided in Another Inter Partes Review Proceeding that Was Not Appealed