Login | April 23, 2024
Big IP cases in next Supreme Court term
RICHARD WEINER
Technology for Lawyers
Published: October 7, 2016
The next term of the US Supreme Court, which started the first Tuesday in October (because of Rosh Hashanah) will hear arguments for several interesting IP cases, including a jury award of nearly a billion dollars. It is also being asked for cert in other IP cases that apply to technologies like YouTube.
That case will be Samsung Electronics v Apple, in which Apple won a patent infringement design case over Samsung smartphones aping the iPhone. Samsung is arguing that the jury award is excessive, and that the law governing that decision is obsolete.
One issue in the Samsung case is a section of patent law that gives the recipient of the award the infringer’s full profit ($399 million, in this case). That section dates from an 1885 Supreme Court decision on rug design. Amici briefs for Samsung are coming in from law professors; amici briefs for Apple from large design retailers like Tiffany’s and Crocs.
Star Athletica v Varsity Brands is about cheerleader outfit designs, but of more interest to techies is the fact that four 3D printing companies have filed amicus briefs in the case. The arguments in the case center around whether simple, utilitarian designs can be copyrighted if they are an integral part of the function of the designed object. The printing companies want a high bar set on design copyright. The case comes out of the Sixth Circuit.
One case not on the docket, but which both sides have asked the Supreme Court to take, puts a YouTube video in the middle of the copyright versus fair use versus censorship on the internet, within the context of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The case, Lenz v Universal Studios, from the Ninth Circuit, concerns the Lenz family, which posted a YouTube video of their kids dancing to a Prince song. Universal had YouTube take it down. The Lenz family, represented by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is arguing fair use. The Supremes are being asked to define (or refine) the Fair Use Doctrine in a case that might have major implications for the future of the internet.