Source: http://www.ipinbrief.com/tag/due-process/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 17:59:29+00:00

Document:
Mastering Rubik’s Cube may be easier. Predicting the amount of statutory damages that will be awarded in copyright infringement litigation continues to confound attorneys on both sides of the fence. Why? Here are some reasons. But first a few words of explanation. I originally wrote this post in April of 2010. I decided to update it after some of the cases I mentioned went through further appeals and retrials.
Arista Records v. Lime Wire: Did the Record Companies Forfeit the Right to Collect from Lime Wire As Much as $15.6 Million By Recovering Less than $48,000 from Other Infringers in Earlier Actions?
Lime Wire continues to educate regarding statutory damages. The latest novel issue it decided is whether a judgment for statutory damages against an individual infringer for copyright infringement of a work in one action bars a statutory award in a second action against a secondarily liable defendant who induced that infringement. In other words where two (or more) infringers are jointly and severally liable, does recovery of an award of statutory damages against one infringer in one action bar a statutory award against the other infringer in a second action.
The Arista Records v. Lime Wire litigation in the Southern District of N.Y., headed for a jury trial in early May, is a statutory damages tutorial. Judge Kimba Wood has decided a number of issues of first impression dealing with the availability of statutory damages in copyright litigation involving secondary and joint and several liability. The statutory damage issues, now answered, include: 1.
The New York Court of Appeals (“Court of Appeals”) delighted the copyright industry on March 24 in the case of Penguin v. American Buddha by allowing New York-based copyright holders to assert digital piracy copyright infringement claims in this state even if the copyright holders suffered no quantifiable injury in N.Y. and even if no infringing activity took place in N.Y.
Andrew will be speaking in Chicago at John Marshall Law School’s 55th Annual Intellectual Law Conference on Friday February 25. His topic will be constitutional challenges to statutory damages for copyright infringement. He will focus on the Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset cases. Here is his article on the Tenenbaum case he prepared for the talk. It urges that the jury verdict be reinstated.
Sony v. Tenenbaum: What Are the Due Process Limitations on Awards of Statutory Damages in Copyright Litigation?
First Circuit review of Judge Gertner’s decision in Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum is in sight with argument set for April 4. In that copyright infringement case, the district court did what no court had ever done before. It threw out a jury award of $675,000 in statutory damages on due process grounds even though the award was within the statutory range set by Congress.
Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum Here is the audio of the nine minute podcast I recently did for Suffolk University Law School discussing the district court’s decision in Sony BMG v. Tanenbaum and its impact on copyright enforcement if not overturned on appeal. If for some reason you can’t listen to it here, Legal Talk Network also posted the podcast here.
Penguin v. American Buddha: Should Internet Copyright Infringement Alter the Jurisdictional Analysis Under the Long-Arm Statute?
Long-arm statutes were designed to extend personal jurisdiction outside of state lines. But no doubt the legislators who enacted these statutes never dreamed that the long arm they were creating might stretch around the world thanks to the internet. P enguin v. American Buddha is the latest case to shape the boundaries of the long-arm statute in an internet age.
Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum: Are File-Sharing Willful Infringers in Copyright Litigation Now a Judicially Protected Class?
I know the title sounds a bit provocative. But the opinion in Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum protects a willful music downloader in copyright infringement litigation based on a bizarre interpretation of the Digital Theft Deterrence Act of 1999. Here is my article published in a recent BNA Patent Trademark & Copyright Journal (respectfully) critical of the court’s opinion.
Counterfeit infringement over the Internet continues to grow. With the web erasing marketing and distribution hurdles, it is easier than ever for Internet marketers in Bangladesh to sell counterfeit goods in Spokane. Owners seeking to compel counterfeiters to defend trademark infringement actions in the owner’s home court face jurisdictional due process issues. Often the counterfeiters only contacts with the local forum are a sale there that infringes plaintiff’s trademark plus sales of products bearing the marks of others.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.