The issue of
sovereign immunity was raised in the Florida Prepaid Post-Secondary Education
Expense Board v. College Savings Bank case from 1999. The plaintiff, College
Savings Banks, filed a patent infringement suit against the defendant, Florida
Prepaid. The defendant was a State entity. The Court ruled in a 5-4 vote that State
sovereignty could not be taken away even though the Patent and Plant Variety
Protection Remedy Clarification Act says differently.

Case Description

The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant
which happened to be a State entity. The plaintiff claimed the Patent and Plant
Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act takes away sovereign immunity — or
immunity from liability — from states. The defendant claimed the Seminole
Tribe v. Florida outcome declared sovereign immunity could not be taken from
the State.

The
plaintiff relied on the 14th Amendment which gave the State no power to take
away property without due process, which included patent properties. The defense
claimed no law passed by Congress shall be able to curtail the protection held
by the states from patent infringement suits.

Ruling

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled the Patent
and Plant Variety Protection Remedy Clarification Act could not take away
sovereign immunity from the State of Florida. The Court said only a consistent
disregard for the property rights and patent rights of citizens could permit Congress
to take away sovereign immunity from a State. Since the plaintiff could not
prove the defendant demonstrated consistent patent violations, the State’s
protection in the form of sovereign immunity would remain.

Hotchkiss, along with other inventors, claimed to own a valid patent for an improvement to doors and doorknobs. The plaintiff claimed their clay and porcelain door knobs and the way they were installed improved doors and the idea was original and inventive. They were attempting to sue the defendant for using their patent without permission. The Supreme Court in 1850 ruled that replacing one material for another was not inventive or a new discovery and the patent application by the plaintiffs was invalid.

Case Description

The plaintiffs replaced metal and wood doorknobs with porcelain and clay knobs made from pottery. They used similar methods of installation of other knobs as described by their patent application. The Secretary of State originally granted the patenting of the new doorknobs. The defendants in the case showed examples of doorknobs made from pottery and the process by which they are installed took place many years before the plaintiffs filed their patent application. Many different cities in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania had practiced the method of applying clay knobs to doors. This showed the plaintiff’s patent was not original, inventive nor non-obvious.

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled the patent application requested by the plaintiffs was not valid. The practice of using clay and porcelain for doorknobs had been practiced many years prior to the plaintiff’s discovery. This showed the plaintiffs had not discovered or invented anything new. Also, replacing one material with another is an obvious adjustment that can be made to an item. The Court ruled the defendant did not infringe on the plaintiff’s patent because they did not own a valid patent.

This Supreme Court ruling was the first case to apply the concept of non-obviousness to the patentability of something. This case established that if something was obvious and non-inventive there was no point in patenting it because it has probably already been invented and used by the public. Once the public has already been using something there is no point in patenting it and neither ownership nor exclusive rights will be granted to a hopeful patent applicant.

Teleflex
acted as the plaintiff and KSR as the defendant in the 2007 case involving
patent infringement. Teleflex believed KSR’s use of a vehicle control pedal
connected to an electronic throttle control was an infringement on a patent
held by the plaintiff. The District Court ruled in favor of the defendant
claiming the use was obvious, but the Federal Court reversed the decision. The
case went to the Supreme Court, which in turn reversed the decision back to the
District Court’s decision and ruled in favor of the defendant.

Case Description

The defendant combined an adjustable control pedal
to an electronic throttle control in automobiles. The plaintiff claimed this
was infringing on a patent claim they owned. The defense’s argument was a
simple argument that is used in many patent infringement cases. They argued the
combining of the two elements in the case was an obvious adjustment made to the
existing patent. The obviousness of the combination would have been realized by
anyone familiar with the art. The plaintiff did not feel there was a level of
obviousness attached to the combination performed by the defendant.

Ruling

The Supreme Court was clear in its ruling that the
combining of the two elements in the automobile was obvious. The Supreme Court
noted that the Federal Court was incorrect in determining that combining the
two elements discussed in the case were not obvious and someone familiar and
skilled in the art would not naturally combine the pedal and the electronic
throttle. The Supreme Court went as far as to say the combination was common
sense. The KSR decision is now used in almost 60% of similar cases. Many feel
there are too many instances that are declared obvious but obviousness will
only apply to those who are familiar with the art discussed in each individual
case.

In the
Pennock v. Dialogue case from 1829, Pennock (the plaintiff) was seeking a
patent for improvements for making hoses he created but which were already
being used by the public. The court ruled in favor of the defendant on the
issue of patenting items already in the public’s possession. The case was heard
in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Case Description

Pennock and Sellers created a new method for producing
hoses to transport air, water and other fluids. They did not patent their new
method when it was created in 1811. The public soon got hold of the new method
for the improved art of making hoses and 13,000 feet of hose had been
constructed in houses in Philadelphia. Samuel Jenkins claimed to have an
agreement with the plaintiffs to sell and supply hoses to hose companies in
Philadelphia.

Once the
hose companies began producing hoses using the plaintiff’s method the invention
was in the possession of the public and were subject to public use. The
plaintiff made no claim that from 1811 to the time they were ready to apply for
an invention patent that they were improving their hose-making method. The
plaintiffs did not claim to try and hide the new method of making hoses from
the public.

Ruling

The jury in this case ruled once an inventor
willfully gives up their exclusive rights after an invention is created and a
patent is not obtained, they cannot regain any rights once the public is in
possession of those rights. An invention that is in the public domain cannot be
taken out of that domain. Once an invention is legally open for public use it
cannot be taken away because that would disrupt any growth or room for
improvement within that invention. 

If the plaintiffs had successfully obtained
an invention patent for their improvement to hose production they would have
had a valid claim against those profiting off of their improved hose production
method.

This case showed the importance of obtaining a patent.
Inventing something and being recognized as the creator does not offer enough
protection and rights to assure that the inventor will be the main person
profiting off of their invention. If the public gets hold of the knowledge or a
method for improvement before a patent is acquired, a patent request will be
denied because the invention is a part of public domain.

Irving
Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc. (329 F. 2d 541), which took place in 1964,
was one of the many copyright infringement cases which helped shaped
copyright law and parody copyright guidelines. The court case involved Irving
Berlin’s song entitled “A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody”, in which Mad
Magazine, a popular parody magazine, parodied the song and entitled it
“Louella Schwartz Describes Her Malady”. E.C. Publications, Inc., Mad
Magazine’s parent company, was named the defendant in the case.

Mad Magazine, known for its humorous depictions of
pop culture, published a volume called The Worst from Mad No. 4. In it, Mad Magazine had a
feature called “Sing Along with Mad” in which they parodied songs and
printed replacement lyrics to artists’ songs. During the trial, Judge Irving
Kaufman famously stated that, “We doubt that even so eminent a composer as
plaintiff Irving Berlin should be permitted to claim a property interest in
iambic pentameter.” The judge was referring to meters used to establish
the rhythm in which words are arranged on each line of poetry.

The court ruled that the parody song of Irving Berlin’s
work featured in Mad Magazine did not violate parody copyright laws. All other
songs except for two were ruled out at the conclusion of the case. It was found
that two of Mad Magazine’s parodies were too similar to the original songs,
which used the same verbal hooks as the original. Berlin and other music
publishers involved in the case appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, though
they refused to withdraw the victory Mad Magazine had in court.

Of all copyright infringement cases, this one is important to
parody copyright law because it paved the way for parodists to use similar
meter structure of popular songs, a right that is still stands today.

The
copyright infringement case of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. was filed in
2003 by MGM, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., a total of 28 other entertainment
companies, against Grokster and Steamcast.  Grokster and Steamcast were
Internet companies that offered peer-to-peer file sharing.  Peer-to-peer
file sharing, otherwise known as P2P file sharing, is the act of sharing stored
digital information, such as movies, music, documents, and electronic
books.  This particular movie copyright suit was filed due to the fact
that a large number of the files that were being shared on these websites were
copyrighted material, some of which belonged to MGM and the other listed
entertainment companies.

In response to the copyright infringement case,
Grokster argued that if the movie copyright suit were to be found in favor of
the plaintiff, this would create the potential grounds for movie copyright
organizations to seek damages in a number of previous acts believed to be
related to peer-to-peer file sharing and copyright infringement.  With
this not being the first filed copyright infringement case that Grokster was
named in on behalf of MGM, there was a great deal at stake as to what the final
decision would forecast for future movie copyright regulations. 

The
copyright infringement case was originally filed by MGM, along with the 28
entertainment companies, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  The copyright infringement case was dismissed in
2003, due to its parallels to the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios movie copyright
case, and its final verdict.  In the Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios
copyright infringement case, the court had to reach a decision as to the
regulation of the VCR. 

Movie
copyright lawmakers had to decide whether or not VCR manufacturers would be responsible
for the actions of consumers that used their product on the basis of potential
copyright infringement.  In the copyright infringement case of Sony Corp.
v. Universal City Studios, the final verdict by the Supreme Court of the United
States concluded that the function of VCR recording for individual use executed
a person’s right to fair use.

The copyright infringement case of MGM Studios,
Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., was then filed by MGM to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  This second installment of the movie
copyright case was dismissed on the basis of the notion that P2P file sharing
is a method that is lawfully binding.  Nevertheless, it was in 2005 that
the United States Supreme Court made the final ruling on the copyright infringement
case, declaring that Grokster, Ltd. and Steamcast were liable for their
involvement in the P2P file sharing being conducted on their networking
sites. 

The basis
for the final Supreme Court ruling in the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
copyright infringement case was that the court saw the defendants’ actions as a
copyright infringement by specifically promoting such practice and capability
to consumers.

The Pirate
Bay is a website based in Sweden, functioning as a BitTorrent indexer and tracker, claiming
to be the largest website in the world dedicated to BitTorrents. BitTorrents
have raised many concerns about copyright infringement, as many users have taken advantage of the technology to
download copyrighted music, movies and other works within a matter of minutes
and free of charge. As a result, media companies owning popular copyrights have taken action against The
Pirate Bay and other similar BitTorrent websites. Websites such as The Pirate
Bay have also inspired new internet copyright law to be set into place to
combat copyright infringement.

Police Raid on the Pirate Bay

The Pirate Bay was the primary target in the fight
against BitTorrent trackers. On May 31, 2006, The Pirate Bay was raided by
Swedish police in twelve different premises and resulted in the seizing of 186
servers. The Pirate Bay was subsequently offline for the following three days.

According to
the founders of The Pirate Bay, they believe that the raid was political and
was the result of pressure from the Motion Picture Association of America
(MPAA). The effects of the raid were in favor of The Pirate Bay. However, the
website was back online days later and BitTorrent downloads through their
tracker doubled.

Following the investigation of the confiscated
servers and hard drives and interrogations by the Swedish police, a four
thousand page report was written by the prosecutor to precede an oncoming
trial. E-mail messages, SMS messages, financial records, police interrogations,
and pictures of The Pirate Bay’s website were included within the report.

The Pirate Bay Trial

The trial of The Pirate Bay vs. Sweden is one of
many high profile copyright cases and is followed closely by the internet
community, especially people who use BitTorrents. On January 31, 2008, Swedish
prosecutors filed charges against four individuals they believed were closely
associated with The Pirate Bay, a company that promoted the use of illegal
copyright infringement under internet copyright law. These individuals included
Gottfrid Svartholm, Fredrik Neij, and Peter Sunde, the current caretakers of
the website. The evidence which was to be used in the trial originated from the
raid which took place almost two years before. The trial finally began on
February 16, 2009.

On the first day of the trial, defense lawyer, Per E. Samuelson,
stressed that file sharing protocols such as BitTorrent can be used for either legal or illegal
purposes, further stating that a tool which can be used for legal and illegal
practices does not violate Swedish law. He also claimed that the users
themselves are the ones that should answer for the material which they obtained
illegally.

During the second day of the trial, the charges against The Pirate
Bay were partially dropped. Although the defense attorneys claimed it to be a
victory, the prosecutors thought that the dropped charges do not change the
main case and will allow the prosecutors to focus on the primary issue at hand.
The dropped charges were largely related to “assisting copyright infringement”,
though these charges were expected to be dropped because The Pirate Bay is not
responsible directly for distributing illegal copies of media.

As the trial continued, prosecutors claimed that
the owners of The Pirate Bay should have obtained licenses for content it helps
distribute. As a defense, Samuelson claimed that to assist in a crime that
violates internet copyright law, one would have to have close ties with the
perpetrators. Since the users of The Pirate Bay distribute files anonymously under
website usernames, they are not closely tied to them and should not be held
accountable.

For the remainder of the trial, the prosecutors
portrayed The Pirate Bay as a profitable business, creating revenue through
assisting in the violation of internet copyright law. The defense portrayed The
Pirate Bay as nothing more than an ordinary search engine an internet user
would typically access to retrieve information. Also, expert witnesses were
brought in by the prosecutors and defense, both giving contradicting views on
the effects of internet copyright infringement on media sales and profits.

The Verdict

At the conclusion of the trial, The Pirate Bay
employees were sentenced to one year in jail and a payment of damages amounting
to $3.5 million U.S. dollars. The court concluded that the defendants were
guilty of being an accessory to a crime which violated internet copyright law.
The court found that a person may be an accessory to a crime without directly
committing a crime. An ongoing appeal to the verdict is ongoing as of April 29,
2010.

A & M Records vs. Napster was a major
intellectual property case that took place in 2001, pertaining to the illegal
file sharing of MP3 music files, which the record industry claimed
was copyright infringement. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of the United States
District Court, for which the Northern District of California held the
defendant, Napster, may be liable for contributory infringement and vicarious
infringement of copyrights held by companies within the music industry. 

This case was responsible for bringing
peer-to-peer file sharing services into public attention, which could
potentially be used to illegally share copyrighted material, and was the first
of several other similar cases.

The Plaintiffs

Although the case is referred to as “A & M Records v. Napster”,
the list of plaintiffs extends beyond just A & M Records. There were a
total of eighteen plaintiffs listed against Napster in the District Court suit,
all subsidiaries of the “big four” record companies: Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group, Warner Music
Group, and EMI. All four companies are members of the Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA), a group formed in 1952 which represents the
recording industry distributors within the United States, making up more than
80 percent of all music officially released in the U.S.

Defendant

Napster was a company formed by eighteen year old Shawn Fanning at Northeastern
University. Napster was the first user-friendly peer-to-peer file sharing
service, which allowed any user to access other users’ MP3 files, which were
easily downloaded. Napster also introduced a simple searching ability from
their central server, allowing users to quickly access a list of available
files for which they would be searching. Napster
quickly rose in popularity to its peak in 2001, as millions of users continued
downloading song files for free from other computers around the world.

District Court

The record companies involved in the case filed to place a preliminary injunction
to cease the exchange of files, which they claimed violated music copyright law. They also sought claims against
Napster for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. To counter this
argument Napster defended itself through fair use and substantial
non-infringing use, also claiming that the injunction requested by the record
companies violated their First Amendment right to free speech. 

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ruled that the
record companies had a valid argument against Napster and had successfully
proved irreparable harm to the record industry through music copyright
infringement. The injunction against Napster was granted and the judge ordered
a plan of action to be taken by Napster to remove files protected under music
copyright from their network. Napster immediately appealed to the decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Appeal

Napster actively countered the injunction decision through an argument. The court, however,
decided that even though Napster did not directly profit off of the material
that was distributed over their networks, the excessive copying of works
constituted music copyright infringement. The Ninth Circuit consequently agreed
with the District Court’s conclusion that Napster jeopardized the record
industry’s sales.

Napster identified three points of fair use in which its service properly used
copyrighted material:

1. Napster claimed that the network could be used to
“sample” MP3 music files for a user to make a decision of whether or
not to purchase the record.

2. “Space-shifting” was also claimed by Napster, a
concept in which a user who already owns a legal copy of the music may legally
download the MP3 file through Napster’s network. This argument was proven
invalid because when a user downloads a file in Napster, it is immediately made
available to other users.

3. Napster also identified permissive distribution in its
fair use arguments, in which an artist can give permission for distribution of
copyrighted music through Napster’s system. The court allowed this practice to
continue.

The court also found that since Napster had the ability to regulate what its
users distribute over its networks, they had a responsibility to prevent music
copyright infringement from taking place.

Contributory Infringement

Napster argued in the Ninth Circuit Court that they had no way to distinguish a
copyrighted music file and a file that was not copyrighted, so they should not
be held liable for infringement. The court disagreed, however, and Napster was
found to be held
directly supporting the infringement of music copyright
material.

Vicarious Infringement

The Ninth Circuit Court sided with the District Court, agreeing that Napster’s
primary draw to users was the ability to illegally obtain copyrighted work.
Also, since Napster planned to expand and increase the number of its users in
the future, their activities were ruled to be inductive to financial gain from
illegal infringement.

Aftermath

Napster struggled with the injunction demands and when they were only able to
maintain a 99.4 percent efficacy in removing music copyright work, the judge
ordered Napster to be shut down until it reached 100 percent. Napster soon
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and was forced to shut down after Bertelsmann’s
inquisition to purchase Napster was blocked by the court.

The record industry’s case against Napster had a large impact on copyright
infringement of music and other files on the internet. Other peer-to-peer
networks emerged in the wake of Napster’s demise, though
they were also subject to the same legal trouble.