Top 10 Pending Cases
| # | Case Name(s) | Citation(s) of last decision(s) | Docket No(s). | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). |
|
|||
| If approved, the Google Books settlement will dramatically impact the way books are accessed online and the copyright, competition, and privacy norms associated with such access. If rejected, there is a good chance that there will either be a revised settlement agreement for the court to consider or else a determination of a critical fair use issue affecting the future of copyright digitization efforts in the United States. | |||||
|
2 |
Jewel v. National Security Agency (N.D. Cal.). In re National Sec. Agency Telecom. Records Litig., (N.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2009). Hepting v. AT&T Corp. (N.D. Cal.). |
In N.D. Cal. awaiting opinion on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment. Some consolidated cases on appeal to 9th Cir., others briefing summary judgment motions in N.D. Cal. Judgment entered in favor of Defendants in N.D. Cal. on Jul. 21, 2009 and on appeal to the 9th Cir. as No. 09-16676 with expected briefing schedule as follows: Opening brief Dec. 8, 2009, Opposition Feb. 10, 2010, and Reply Mar. 25, 2010. |
|||
| Can the President simply issue a secret, unreviewable order requiring telecom companies to give the government a copy of every bit that traverses the Internet, without any limits on the uses to which that information can be put? | |||||
|
3 |
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). |
On appeal to the Supreme Court as Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964. Oral argument held on Nov. 9, 2009. |
|||
| The Supreme Court must decide where to draw the line between invention and abstract idea. The placement of this line could have a dramatic effect on any number of industries, from software to financial to pharmaceutical. | |||||
|
4 |
Viacom Int’l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). The Football Ass’n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.) |
In discovery in S.D.N.Y. as No. 07-2103 and No. 07-03582. |
|||
| Is Google really willing to “bet the company” that YouTube satisfies all of the conditions of the § 512(c) “hosting” safe harbor? | |||||
|
5 |
In the Matters of Formal Complaint of Free Press and Public Knowledge Against Comcast Corporation for Secretly Degrading Peer-to-Peer Applications, WC Docket No. 07-52 (FCC 2008). |
On appeal to the D.C. Cir. as Comcast Corp. v. FCC, No. 08-1291. Petitioner’s brief filed Jul. 27, 2009, Respondent’s brief filed Sep. 21, 2009, Petitioner’s Reply brief due Oct. 26, 2009, and Final briefs due Nov. 23, 2009. |
|||
| Comcast’s challenge calls into question the Commission’s authority to implement any regulatory strategy to promote or maintain network neutrality absent an explicit congressional directive. | |||||
|
# |
Case Name(s) |
Citation(s) of last decision(s) |
Docket No(s). |
Status |
|
|
6 |
Capital Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset (D. Minn.). Sony BMG Music Ent’mt v. Tenenbaum (D. Mass.). |
No. 07-11446, consolidated with lead case No. 03-11661 |
Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Thomas-Rasset entered on Jun. 19, 2009 in D. Minn.; Post-trial motion by Defendant for new trial, remittitur, and to alter or amend the judgment and motion by Plaintiffs to amend the judgment, requesting an injunction, both fully briefed as of Aug. 28, 2009. Jury verdict in favor of Plaintiffs against Joel Tenenbaum entered in D. Mass. on Jul. 31, 2009. Summary judgment in plaintiffs’ favor on defendant’s affirmative defense of fair use granted and judgment entered on Dec. 7, 2009.
|
||
| These jury awards, which are grossly disproportionate to any actual damages suffered by the copyright holders by any reasonable estimate, reveal in stark relief the potential constitutional infirmities of the Copyright Act’s statutory damages provisions. | |||||
|
7 |
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, 558 F. Supp. 2d 1055 (C.D. Cal. 2008). MDY Indus. LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc., 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1015 (D. Ariz. 2008). Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 555 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (W.D. Wash. 2008). |
|
On appeal to the 9th Cir. as No. 08-55998. All briefs filed as of Feb. 27, 2009. On appeal to the 9th Cir. as Nos. 09-15932 & 09-16044. Opening brief filed on Sep. 14, 2009. Amicus brief by Public Knowledge filed on Sep. 23, 2009. Blizzard’s principal and response brief due Oct. 28, 2009. MDY’s response and reply brief due Dec. 11, 2009 and Blizzard’s reply brief due within 14 days after service of MDY’s response and reply brief. Amended decision on cross motions for summary judgment issued on Oct. 23, 2009 in W.D. Wash. as No. 07-1189, directing that judgment be entered for Vernor. On appeal to the 9th Cir. as No. 09-35969. Appellant’s opening brief on Jan. 5, 2010. Appellee’s answering brief on Feb. 4, 2010. Appellant’s optional reply brief on Feb. 26, 2010. |
||
| The Augusto and Vernor decisions, through a faithful adherence to precedent, represent an interpretive breakthrough in an area of law fraught with misguided approaches. By recognizing what is right in these decisions, we can see not only why the Ninth Circuit should reverse Blizzard, but how best to resolve the recurring question of when title to a copy passes to a transferee, giving rise to first sale and § 117 rights. | |||||
|
8 |
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009).
Ezzo v. Google, Inc. (M.D. Fla.). FPX, LLC v. Google, Inc. (E.D. Tex.). John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC v. Google, Inc. (E.D. Tex.).
Google, Inc. v. John Beck Amazing Profits, LLC (N.D. Cal.).
Stratton Faxon v. Google, Inc. (New Haven, Conn. Sup. Ct.).
Soaring Helmet Corp. v. Bill Me Inc. (W.D. Wa.). Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc. (E.D. Va.). Flowbee Int’l, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (S.D. Tex.). |
|
On remand to N.D.N.Y. as No. 04-01055 from 2d Cir. Google answered complaint and filed a counterclaim on May 29, 2009, which Rescuecom answered on Jul. 31, 2009. Google’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and for more definite statement filed in M.D. Fla. on May 13, 2009. Ezzo’s motions for entry of default against three other defendants denied on Oct. 13, 2009 for failure to show two were properly served and because one had answered the complaint. All Defendants answered complaint in E.D. Tex. on Aug. 3, 2009. Complaint filed in E.D. Tex. May 14, 2009. Complaint filed in N.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2009. Docket reports complaint filed on Aug. 17, 2009 in New Haven, Conn. Sup. Ct., but complaint was available May 27, 2009. [?] Google’s motion to dismiss filed in W.D. Wa. on Aug. 17, 2009, with hearing set for Oct. 27, 2009. Google’s motion to dismiss for improper venue denied and motion to dismiss false endorsement and conspiracy claims granted on Sep. 21, 2009 in E.D. Va. Google answered complaint on Oct. 2, 2009. Complaint filed in S.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2009. Google’s motion to dismiss to be heard Oct. 26, 2009.
|
||
| The AdWords cases push on a more fundamental question about the nature of trademark rights. Should we understand trademarks as a tool for consumer protection and empowerment? Or should this traditional justification for trademark law yield to the propertization of marks, the view that all uses of a mark fall within the trademark holder’s exclusive control? | |||||
|
9 |
Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc., 91 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2009). |
Defendant answered complaint in N.D. Cal. on Jul 9, 2009. Facebook filed a motion to dismiss Power Venture’s counterclaims on Sep. 2, 2009 and oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 30, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. |
|||
| In this case, Judge Fogel will likely decide whether Sega and Connectix apply to aggregation sites, with huge implications for almost all Web 2.0 companies. | |||||
|
10 |
The King’s English, Inc. v. Shurtleff, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60699 (D. Utah Aug. 8, 2008). Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2009). Interactive Media Ent’mt & Gaming Ass’n v. Wingate, No. 2008-CA-002000 (Ky. Ct. App. 2009). |
In discovery in D. Utah as Florence v. Shurtleff, No. 05-00485. Oral argument on certified questions before Ohio Supreme Court as Cordray v. Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression, No. 2009-0609, on Oct. 20, 2009. On appeal to Kentucky Supreme Court as Commonwealth v. Interactive Media Ent’mt & Gaming Ass’n, No. 2009-000043. Oral argument set for Oct. 22, 2009. |
|||
| The failures of the CDA and COPA, and the narrow scope of the UIGEA have created a situation in which many states seek to address the issues of online speech deemed “harmful to minors” and internet gambling themselves, although the states too run into constitutional difficulties. | |||||
Regarding the above table:
- The case name is a link to our post about the case.
- The citations are links to a pdf of that opinion.
- The court name is a link to that court’s web site.
- The docket number is a link to that docket, on archive.org, if available, otherwise on PACER ($).
- The status column provides the most recent or an upcoming substantive event in the case.
We welcome both your suggestions of cases for potential inclusion on this list and substantive status updates we may overlook.
