Opinion ID: 219099
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Firms' Claims Satisfy the General Scope Requirement for Preemption Under NBA

Text: I also agree with the majority's determination that the Firms' claims satisfy § 301's general scope requirement because the Firms seek to vindicate rights that may be abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the exclusive rights provided by federal copyright law. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see ante at 892-93, 902-03. In reaching this conclusion, the majority dismisses the five-part test enunciated in NBA as dictum and identifies other factors distinguishing this case from International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215, 39 S.Ct. 68, 63 L.Ed. 211 (1918) ( INS ). See ante at 898-906. Although I too have reservations about NBA 's test  specifically, whether it in fact identifies extra elements qualitatively different from those rights protected exclusively by copyright to avoid preemption  I am not convinced that the standard can be dismissed as dictum. In any event, we need not do so in this case because the Firms failed to satisfy the direct competition requirement of NBA 's test.