We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 128

No appeal of determination that digital movies delivered by physical media are not taxable in New York

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 23 2012

In June 2012 a New York State Division of Tax Appeals administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of a movie theatre operator represented by McDermott Will Emery on the question of whether nontaxable licenses to exhibit digital movies become taxable if the movies are delivered to the theatre on hard drives, which are physical media

Right of publicity v. copyright

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

Reversing a district court’s ruling on a motion for judgment as a matter of law on preemption and standing, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that an adult film star had standing to assert copyright claims but his right of publicity claim was preempted by federal copyright law

Google Books is fair use and provides “significant public benefits”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2013

Since 2004, the Google Books project has scanned over 20 million books and has provided digital copies of the books to participating libraries while

Lanham Act challenges may not undermine FDA regulations

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s partial grant of summary judgment in a Lanham Act claim, holding that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and its regulations barred both the name and labeling aspects of the Lanham Act claim

Ravens’ fair use defense won’t fly

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 28 2010

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversing the district court, found that the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens’ unauthorized use of its previously adjudicated infringing logo design in highlight film was not a fair use

“Hot news” cannot be enjoined under misappropriation claim

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2011

In a case that attracted significant amici attention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, invoking the copyright law principal of preemption, vacated an injunction against an internet news service that was based on a tort claim of misappropriation

Direct licenses should be considered in determining reasonable royalty for performing rights organizations

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that rate courts can take into account direct license rates when determining reasonable royalties due to performing rights organizations in Broadcast Music Inc. v. DMX, Inc

KSR based renewed motion on obviousness is a winner

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 26 2009

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court grant of a post-KSR renewed summary judgment on obviousness (after denying a pre-KSR motion

Constitutional challenge to (file sharing) damage award rebuffed

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 31 2011

The U. S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit was less sympathetic than the district court to a Boston College graduate student who was found to have used file sharing software to distribute copyrighted music, concluding that the district court erred in reducing the damage award based on due process concerns

Statutory damages: foreign works and the U.S. live broadcast exemption

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 16 2009

In a class action led by the Football Association Premier League (FAPL) and U.S. music publishers Bourne against YouTube and its owners Google (The FAPL v YouTube Inc. (US District Court Southern District of New York)) filed on 4 May 2007, a U.S. District Court judge held that, because the FAPL did not register its broadcasts of Premier League matches with the US Copyright Office, it cannot claim statutory damages under the US Copyright Act against YouTube in respect of allegedly copyright infringing material uploaded by users to the video sharing site