Copyright misuse is an equitable defense against copyright infringement in the United States allowing copyright infringers to avoid infringement liability if the copyright holder has engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright. Copyright misuse is comparable to, and draws from precedents under, the older doctrine of patent misuse, which dates back to the early years of the 20th century and derives from the more general equity doctrine of "unclean hands", which bars a party from obtaining equitable relief against another when the party has acted improperly.
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate, because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement and the fact that the services was capable of having non-infringing user was not enough reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if he had eliminated an encryption system feature and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.
Scheidler v. National Organization for Women, 547 U.S. 9 (2006), was a lengthy and high-profile U.S. legal case interpreting and applying the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO): a law originally drafted to combat the mafia and organized crime, the Hobbs Act: an anti-extortion law prohibiting interference with commerce by violence or threat of violence, and the Travel Act: a law prohibiting interstate travel in support of racketeering.
Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59 (1978), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court overturned the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's decision that the Price Anderson Act violated equal protection by treating victims of nuclear accidents differently from the victims of other industrial accidents.
Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950), combined three pending federal cases for a hearing in certiorari in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence of others in the armed forces. The opinion is an extension of the English common-law concept of sovereign immunity.
Admiralty law in the United States is a matter of federal law.
Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that individuals who bribed a judge for an injunction were not protected by judicial immunity and therefore could be held liable for the damages resulting from the injunction.
TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19 (2001), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The following text is adapted from this CRS report, a document in the public domain.
United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681 (1987), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court barred the widow of a serviceman killed while piloting a helicopter on a United States Coast Guard rescue mission from bringing her claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The decision was based upon the Supreme Court's holding in Feres v. United States (1950): "[T]he Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service."
Atlantic Sounding Co. v. Townsend, 557 U.S. 404 (2009), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a seaman may recover punitive damages from his employer for failure to pay maintenance and cure. Townsend reversed a line of cases, starting with Guevara v. Maritime Overseas Corp. in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that restricted damages in maritime personal injury cases only to "pecuniary" damages. Consequently, a seaman can now recover both attorney's fees and punitive damages for the willful and wanton refusal of a shipowner to provide medical care to a seaman injured on the job. The Court's 5-4 opinion was delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied American intellectual property law to the reverse engineering of computer software. Stemming from the publishing of several Sega Genesis games by video game publisher Accolade, which had disassembled Genesis software in order to publish games without being licensed by Sega, the case involved several overlapping issues, including the scope of copyright, permissible uses for trademarks, and the scope of the fair use doctrine for computer code.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2000 term, which began October 2, 2000 and concluded September 30, 2001.
In United States maritime law, the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851, historically or since Feb. 1, 2010, states that the owner of a vessel may limit damage claims to the value of the vessel at the end of the voyage plus "pending freight", as long as the owner can prove it lacked knowledge of the problem beforehand. This Act was the subject of a 2001 United States Supreme Court case in Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc.
Central Green Co. v. United States, 531 U.S. 425 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned the meaning of the words "flood or flood waters" within the Flood Control Act of 1928. The Court concluded that the law did not always apply to federal flood control facilities.
San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522 (1987), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting the trademark rights of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to regulate the use of the word "Olympic" under the Amateur Sports Act of 1978. San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. (SFAA) attempted to organize a sporting events it called the Gay Olympic Games, and the USOC sought to enjoin the games under that name. SFAA claimed that the First Amendment overrode the rights that the Act gave the USOC to control the word Olympic.
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs Legal Comm., 531 U.S. 341 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned whether the FDCA, a federal statute, pre-empted a state-law fraud-on-the-FDA claim. Although finding it on different grounds, the Court decided to reject the lawsuit attempt.
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held 6-3 that the equitable defense of laches is not available to copyright defendants in claims for damages.
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. ___ (2013), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which a unanimous Court held that federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. The case involved a dispute between Sprint Corporation and Windstream Communications.
Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876, was a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit where the Second Circuit, reversing the decision of the US District Court below it, found that the claims of three major financial investment firms against an internet subscription stock news service (theflyonthewall.com) for "Hot-news" Misappropriation under state common law doctrine could not stand, as they were pre-empted by several sections of the Federal Copyright Act.
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. is the caption of several United States Supreme Court patent–related decisions, the most significant of which is a 1969 patent–antitrust and patent–misuse decision concerning the levying of patent royalties on unpatented products.
