Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225679185/Vrng-v-Goog-Cafc-Notice-Supp-Auth-May-22-2014
Timestamp: 2015-01-26 02:08:51
Document Index: 167849617

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 507', '§ 507', '§ 286', '§ 286', '§304', '§304', '§502', '§504', '§504', '§507', '§507']

Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks2Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents2 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC4 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC6 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC8 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC10 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC12 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC14 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC16 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC18 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC20 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC22 PETRELLA v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Vrng v Goog - Cafc - Notice Supp Auth (May 22, 2014)Vrng v Goog - Cafc - Notice Supp Auth (May 22, 2014)Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,385
|Likes: 0Published by Daniel RavicherMore info:Published by: Daniel Ravicher on May 22, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/225679185/Vrng-v-Goog-Cafc-Notice-Supp-Auth-May-22-201405/22/2014pdftextoriginal 2040 Main St., 14th Fl., Irvine, CA 92614 T
(949) 760-0404 Joseph R. ReJoe.Re@knobbe.com
May 22, 2014 V
IA CM/ECF The Honorable Daniel E. O’Toole Circuit Executive and Clerk of the Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit The Howard T. Markey National Courts Building 717 Madison Place, NW Washington, D.C. 20439 Re: I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL Inc. et al
, Appeal Nos. 2013-1307, -1313 Argued: May 6, 2014 (Judges Mayer, Wallach, Chen)
I/P Engine’s Citation of Supplemental Authority Dear Mr. O’Toole: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), I/P Engine, Inc. submits this letter addressing new authority relevant to Plaintiff’s Cross-Appeal. On May 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
, No. 12-1315 (attached hereto), holding that laches could not bar a copyright claim for infringements occurring during the three-year period of 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit because it failed to recognize that the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations “itself takes account of delay.” Slip op. at 11. The Court explained that laches is a “gap-filling, not legislation-overriding” measure. Id
. at 14. The Court knew of “no case in which [it] has approved the application of laches to bar a claim for damages brought within the time allowed by a federal statute of limitations.” Id
. Petrella
requires the Federal Circuit to reverse the laches ruling below. Though the Supreme Court has “not had occasion to review the Federal Circuit’s position” on laches set forth in A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co.
, 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (
), slip op
. at 13 n.15, Petrella
squarely conflicts with Aukerman
is clear: “in [the] face of a statute of limitations enacted by Congress, laches cannot be invoked to bar legal relief.” Id
. at 13. Indeed, applying laches to bar legal relief in patent cases poses a sharper conflict with statute than in copyright cases. Whereas § 507(b) of the copyright law is a traditional statute of limitations barring untimely claims
, 35 U.S.C. § 286 is specifically directed to the time period for recovering damages
. Invoking the equitable doctrine of laches to constrict the express damages period established by § 286 improperly overrides this legislation and sets “a time limit other than the one Congress prescribed.” Slip op
at 15. Petrella
is intervening authority that requires this Court to overrule Aukerman
. Such a ruling would require the panel to reject the district court’s decision to apply laches to bar all damages accruing within the six-year period before this suit was filed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, s/Joseph R. Re Joseph R. Re Case: 13-1307 Document: 103 Page: 1 Filed: 05/22/2014
1 (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2013 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as isbeing done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States
200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus PETRELLA v
. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC., ET AL
. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 12–1315. Argued January 21, 2014—Decided May 19, 2014 The Copyright Act (Act) protects copyrighted works published before1978 for an initial period of 28 years, renewable for a period of up to 67 years. 17 U. S. C. §304(a). The author’s heirs inherit the renewal rights. See §304(a)(1)(C)(ii)–(iv). When an author who has assignedher rights away “dies before the renewal period, . . . the assignee maycontinue to use the original work only if the author’s successor trans-fers the renewal rights to the assignee,” Stewart
, 495 U. S. 207, 221. The Act provides both equitable and legal remedies for in-fringement: an injunction “on such terms as [a court] may deem rea-sonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright,” §502(a);and, at the copyright owner’s election, either (1) the “owner’s actualdamages and any additional profits of the infringer,” §504(a)(1),which petitioner seeks in this case, or (2) specified statutory damag-es, §504(c). The Act’s statute of limitations provides: “No civil actionshall be maintained under the [Act] unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” §507(b). A claim ordinarily ac-crues when an infringing act occurs. Under the separate-accrual rule that attends the copyright statute of limitations, when a defendant has committed successive violations, each infringing act starts a newlimitations period. However, under §507(b), each infringement is ac-tionable only within three years of its occurrence.Here, the allegedly infringing work is the motion picture Raging Bull, based on the life of boxing champion Jake LaMotta, who, withFrank Petrella, told his story in, inter alia, a screenplay copyrighted in 1963. In 1976, the pair assigned their rights and renewal rights,which were later acquired by respondent United Artists Corporation,a subsidiary of respondent Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (collectively, MGM). In 1980, MGM released, and registered a copyright in, the Case: 13-1307 Document: 103 Page: 3 Filed: 05/22/2014
Similar to Vrng v Goog - Cafc - Notice Supp Auth (May 22, 2014)
420 Re Exam Interview
722014 Breach of Contract
Reexam Cert
Settlement Conference Order VRNG
CAFC 13-1307 Document 105
Spex at&t Settlement
Recommended420 Re Exam Interviewflyersdh'420 reexamination interview summary with examiner722014 Breach of ContractflyersdhVRNG v ZTE USA breach of contractReexam CertflyersdhReexam Cert 7/2/2014Settlement Conference Order VRNGflyersdhUpdateCAFC 13-1307 Document 105flyersdhNotification to CAFC of Reexamination Certificate on the '420 patent.WDDD SJ OrderMarkman AdvisorsActivision's SJ granted.Institution DecisionvhcrpxflyersdhNot InstitutedVringo v Google - Jury Verdict (2012!...Dan RavicherExhibit CflyersdhBreach of Contract Exhibit CSpex at&t SettlementflyersdhSPEX ATT SettlementPrevious|NextPage 1 of 3