DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ______ IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ___________________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ___________________________ EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, AGFA CORPORATION, ESKO SOFTWARE BVBA, and HEIDELBERG, USA Petitioners v. CTP INNOVATIONS, LLC Patent Owner ___________________________ Case IPR2014-00788 Patent 6,738,155 ___________________________ PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE Filed on behalf of CTP Innovations, LLC By: W. Edward Ramage (Lead Counsel) Reg No. 50,810 Samuel F. Miller (Back-up Counsel) (pending pro hac vice admission) BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C. Baker Donelson Center 211 Commerce Street, Suite 800 Nashville, Tennessee 37201 Tel: (615) 726-5771 Fax: (615) 744-5771 Email: [email protected] [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................. ii I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 II. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................. 3 A. Mr. Suetens’ Declaration Should Be Excluded. ................................... 3 B. The Apogee Reference Should Be Excluded. ....................................... 8 III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................... 155 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE (S) In re Cronyn , 890 F.2d 1158, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1989) .................................................................. 9 CA, Inc. v. Simple.com, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 196, 307 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) .................................................. 10, 11 Ex parte Research and Manufacturing Co., Inc., 10 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1657, 1989 Pat. App. LEXIS 2 ...................................... 11 Carolina Enters., Inc. v. Coleco Indus., Inc., 211 U.S.P.Q. 479 (D.N.J. 1981) ......................................................................... 12 Nordock Inc. v. Sys. Inc , No. 11-C-118, 2013 WL 989864 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 13, 2013) ............................. 13 Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony Cal., Inc. , No. 03-8749, 2006 WL 6855371 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2006) ............................. 13 STATUTES 17 U.S.C. § 410 ........................................................................................................ 12 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ............................................................................................. 11, 12 OTHER AUTHORITIES 37 C.F.R. § 42.62 ....................................................................................................... 1 37 C.F.R. § 42.64 ....................................................................................................... 1 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b) ..............................................................................................1, 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i) .......................................................................................... 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(a)(2) .............................................................................................. 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(b) ................................................................................................ 2 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(c)(3) ................................................................................................ 2 ii 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(b) .................................................................................................... 2 Federal Rule of Evidence 402 ..............................................................................8, 13 Federal Rule of Evidence 403 ..................................................................................13 Federal Rule of Evidence 602 .................................................................................... 8 Federal Rule of Evidence 802 ..................................................................................13 Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) ............................................................................... 8 Federal Rule of Evidence 901 .................................................................................... 8 MPEP § 2128(II)(A) ................................................................................................ 10 MPEP § 2128(II)(B)................................................................................................. 10 Nimmer on Copyright ............................................................................................... 12 iii I. INTRODUCTION CTP Innovations, LLC (“Patent Owner”), pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.62 and 42.64, moves to exclude the following exhibits from the record in this proceeding: (1) the Declaration of Johan Suetens and attachments (Exhibit 1022), and (2) the AGFA Apogee: The PDF-based Production System brochure (“Apogee”) (Ex. 1007 and Attachment A to Exhibit 1022). Petitioners filed the Declaration of Johan Suetens and the Apogee reference with this proceeding’s original petition. Petitioners filed the Suetens Declaration to establish that the Apogee reference was published prior to the subject patent’s earliest effective filing date. See Suetens Decl. (Ex. 1022), at ¶ 6. Petitioners rely upon the Apogee reference to support all of their obviousness assertions. The Board entered its decisions to institute this proceeding on November 28, 2014. Normally, a patent owner would have had to file an objection to the aforementioned exhibits within ten (10) days of entry of the institution decision. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b). However, on the face of the Suetens Declaration and without the benefit of his deposition, there did not appear to be a viable objection to be made. The grounds to object to these exhibits only became known through the long-delayed and recent deposition of Mr. Suetens on March 26, 2015. Mr. Suetens’ deposition testimony reveals that he completely lacks any personal knowledge of the distribution and public accessibility of the Apogee reference 1 during the relevant time. Indeed, he testified that he has no knowledge of when a member of the public first or actually received a copy of the Apogee reference or when or if the Apogee reference was made available to anyone outside of Agfa and its subsidiaries. Mr. Suetens’ testimony is directly contrary to the allegations made in his declaration. Under analogous circumstances, when a party seeks relief outside the limitations of the normally applicable rules, the Board applies an “in the interest of justice” standard. See, e.g. , 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2)(i) (motion for additional discovery); id. § 42.24(a)(2) (motion to waive page limits); id. § 42.123(b) (motions to submit supplemental information more than one month after institution date); id. § 42.5(c)(3) (excusal of late action in general). The Board may waive or suspend a requirement under part 42 and may place conditions on the waiver or suspension. Id. § 42.5(b). Patent Owner submits that the waiver or suspension of 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)’s requirements is in the interests of justice under the present circumstances. It was only through the recent deposition testimony of Mr. Suetens that the basis for excluding some or all of his declaration, and, as a result, the Apogee reference, became known. Patent Owner requested Mr. Suetens’ deposition shortly after the initial conference call in this proceeding in December 2014, and his deposition was originally scheduled by agreement for February 18, 2 2015. See Notice of Deposition of Johan Suetens (Paper _). Subsequently, Mr. Suetens became unavailable, and Petitioners made him available for deposition on March 26, 2015. See Ex. 2016 Patent Owner has filed this motion within ten (10) days of the deposition and one day after receiving the deposition transcript. Patent Owner could not have discovered the declaration’s defects except through the deposition. Further, a determination on whether the Apogee reference should be excluded may be dispositive of this matter because the Apogee reference is a critical element in every instituted ground for rejection. II. ARGUMENT A. Mr. Suetens’ Declaration Should Be Excluded. Some or all of Mr. Suetens’ declaration (Ex. 1022), and attachments thereto, should be excluded because statements made in the declaration are not accurate and were made without Mr. Suetens’ personal knowledge. Petitioners filed the Suetens Declaration to establish that the Apogee reference was publically available prior to the earliest effective filing date of the subject patent. See Suetens Decl. (Ex. 1022), at ¶ 6. In his declaration, Mr. Suetens makes several affirmative statements regarding the Apogee reference’s distribution and availability. He states that Apogee was distributed shortly after the press briefing of March 17, 1998. Id. at ¶ 7. He states that the Apogee 3 reference was available shortly after that briefing in printed and electronic form and was world-wide distributed through the Agfa sales departments. Id. at ¶ 8. He states that it was available at several seminars, exhibitions and demos of an undefined class of Apogee products to the public. Id. at ¶ 9. He states that the Agfa marketing-communications department made the Apogee reference available to the public no later than the press briefing of May 28, 1998, and possibly as early as the press briefing of March 17, 1998, as an electronic PDF-file for downloading to the public at the website www.agfahome.com. Id. at ¶ 11. He
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Entertainment & Sports Lawyer 33.3
    Meet the New Boss: NOI Table Top Three Services Filing NOIs Number of NOIs Tech Giants Rely on April, 2016—January 201711 Per Service Amazon Digital Services LLC 19,421,902 Loopholes to Avoid Google, Inc. 4,625,521 Pandora Media, Inc. 1,193,346 Paying Statutory According to a recent story on the subject in Royalties with Mass Billboard12: Filings of NOIs at At this point [June 2016], 500,000 new the Copyright Office [songs] are coming online every month [much lower than the reported numerical By Chris Castle average to date], and maybe about 400,000 of them are by indie songwriters [which There is a fundamental rule of music licensing— may include covers], many of whom who if you don’t have a license from the copyright don’t understand publishing,’ Bill Colitre, owner, don’t use the music. In the new thing of VP/General Counsel for Music Reports, “permissionless innovation,”1 the “disruptors” a key facilitator in helping services to pay want to use the music anyway. Nowhere is publishers, tells Billboard. ‘For the long tail, this battle more apparent than the newest music publishing data from indie artists often new thing—mass filing of “address unknown” doesn’t exist’ when their music is distributed compulsory license notices for songs. to digital services. You’re probably familiar with U.S. compulsory Conversely, neither digital retailers, i.e., music mechanical licenses2 for songs mandated by users, nor aggregators appear to be able (or Section 1153 of the Copyright Act.4 We think perhaps willing) to collect publishing information
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office a Report of the Abraham L
    u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t o f f i c e Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office a report of the abraham l. kaminstein scholar in residence december 2014 u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t o f f i c e Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office a report of the abraham l. kaminstein scholar in residence december 2014 Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office: A Report to the Register of Copyrights Robert Brauneis Abraham L. Kaminstein Scholar in Residence, U.S. Copyright Office Professor of Law, The George Washington University Law School December 31, 2014 About the Abraham L. Kaminstein Scholar in Residence Program Through its Abraham L. Kaminstein Scholar in Residence Program, the Copyright Office brings leading academics with a demonstrated commitment to the study of copyright law and policy to the Copyright Office, at the invitation of the Register, to conduct research and/or work on mutually beneficial projects for a sustained period of time. Abe Kaminstein served as the sixth Register of Copyrights, from 1960 to 1971. He was a leading force in adapting the copyright registration system to the public interest, and in laying the groundwork for the general revision of copyright law. Table of Contents I. Introduction. ................................................................................................................................. 7 A. Process. ................................................................................................................................... 8 B. Roadmap. ................................................................................................................................ 8 C. Reference Abbreviations and Locations. ................................................................................ 9 D. Acknowledgments. ............................................................................................................... 10 II.
    [Show full text]
  • The Need for More Certainty of Copyright Status for Classical Music Works Published Between 1925 and 1978*1
    IF IT IS BAROQUE, FIX IT: THE NEED FOR MORE CERTAINTY OF COPYRIGHT STATUS FOR CLASSICAL MUSIC WORKS PUBLISHED BETWEEN 1925 AND 1978*1 I. INTRODUCTION Classical music is all around us. Although dismal concert attendance numbers suggest otherwise, classical music still has an important place in modern culture—from elevating emotions in film soundtracks to wooing consumers through television commercials.2 Edvard Grieg’s Peer Gynt appeared in a Coca-Cola commercial aired during the Pyeongchang 2018 Olympics.3 Advertising agencies have used Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky’s famous 1812 Overture to sell products ranging from breakfast cereal to a drug that treats overactive bladder.4 Independence Day celebrations around the nation also frequently feature the piece.5 Nonclassical artists surreptitiously submerge classical works into popular music. The verse of Eric Carmen’s song “All by Myself,” also covered by Celine Dion,6 originates in Sergei Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto no. 2 in C Minor.7 Rapper Nas used Ludwig van Beethoven’s “Für Elise” throughout his song “I Can.”8 Nas also used Frédéric Chopin’s Étude in C Minor, op. 10, no. 12 in his song “A Queens Story.”9 Lady Gaga’s hit song “Alejandro” begins with Vittorio Monti’s Czardas,10 which itself comes from a traditional Hungarian folk dance.11 Ludacris’s song “Coming 2 America” cleverly and appropriately contains Antonín Dvořák’s Symphony no. 9 in E Minor, op. * Yunica Jiang, J.D. Candidate, Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2020. I would like to thank Professor Erika Douglas for her feedback, guidance, support, and encouragement throughout this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Mar 30 2012 * ------)( Brooklyn Office Ashanta Marshall
    Case 1:08-cv-01420-LB Document 134 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 53 PageIDFILED #: <pageID> IN CLERK'S OFFICI U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.c.N.V. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK * MAR 30 2012 * ------------------------------------------------------)( BROOKLYN OFFICE ASHANTA MARSHALL, Plaintiff, OPINION & ORDER 08 CV 1420 (LB) -against- AFRICA MARSHALL, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------)( BLOOM, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. In 2001, the brothers Marshall began producing a series of instructional videos featuring plaintiff Ashanta Marshall's hairstyling techniques. Plaintiff had years of experience in the hair industry, and defendant Africa Marshall, the younger brother, was interested in video production and was studying communications and marketing. After working together for nearly four years, the brothers fought about the business and their relationship dissolved. However, both brothers continued to promote and sell the videos through various media outlets, and they both registered copyrights with the United States Copyright Office. They now dispute their respective rights to the videos and to the use of plaintiffs image. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an action in the Civil Court of Kings County in 2008. Defendant found pro bono counsel who removed the case to this Court and filed three counterclaims. For three years, the brothers have fought about discovery, engaged in vigorous motion practice, and attacked each other and defendant's counsel. After completing discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part. The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and I held a bench trial on August 1 and 2, 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • The Implications of Pop-Star Practices on the Future of Intellectual Property
    Volume 121 Issue 2 Dickinson Law Review - Volume 121, 2016-2017 10-1-2016 The Implications of Pop-Star Practices on the Future of Intellectual Property Meera Puri Follow this and additional works at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra Recommended Citation Meera Puri, The Implications of Pop-Star Practices on the Future of Intellectual Property, 121 DICK. L. REV. 505 (2016). Available at: https://ideas.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/dlra/vol121/iss2/6 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Dickinson Law IDEAS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dickinson Law Review by an authorized editor of Dickinson Law IDEAS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comments The Implications of Pop-Star Practices on the Future of Intellectual Property Meera Puri* ABSTRACT Major recording artists like Taylor Swift are taking advantage of the generous protections afforded to them by U.S. copyright and trademark laws. Swift has filed for, and received, numerous trademarks for lyrical phrases such as "This Sick Beat" and "Party Like It's 1989" and has threatened merchants selling handmade Swift-themed goods through the online marketplace, Etsy. Swift is primarily targeting fan-made artwork whose creators profit minimally, if at all, and that likely has little to no effect on Swift's own merchandise sales. Swift has also expressed strong opposition to music streaming services, such as Spotify, that other recording artists have praised for allowing consumers to easily and affordably access a wide array of music. Artists who share Swift's views have withheld their music from streaming services, demonstrating their disapproval of royalty policies that they believe undercompensate artists, producers, writers, and labels.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Registrations: Who, What, When, Where, and Why
    OLIAR (P ATTISON )(P OWELL )-1.F INAL .DOCX (D O NOT DELETE ) 6/28/14 5:22 PM Copyright Registrations: Who, What, When, Where, and Why Dotan Oliar, * Nathaniel Pattison ** & K. Ross Powell *** The registration records at the U.S. Copyright Office provide a valuable lens on the use and performance of the copyright system, but have not yet been studied systematically. Using an original data set containing all 2.3 million registrations from 2008 to 2012, we provide a snapshot of current patterns of registration. We describe who is registering what, where, when, and why. Our main findings include the types of work being registered, how the registrations of individuals and firms differ, when works are being registered relative to their date of creation and date of publication, the age distribution of authors in different creative fields, and the geographic distribution and concentration of registration claimants. The registration data collected and reported are superior to those relied upon in prior literature and should therefore prove useful to lawmakers and scholars wishing to measure the effect of copyright law on creativity or otherwise reform our copyright law. I. ! INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................2212 ! II. ! WHY REGISTER ? L EGAL AND MARKET REASONS FOR REGISTRATION ...................................................................................2215 ! A. ! Legal Reasons........................................................................2215 ! B. ! Market-Based Reasons:
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights
    annual report of the register of copyrights the register of report annual Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 · 2010 United States Copyright Office Library of Congress title page photo: United States Copyright Office Library of Congress’s 101 Independence Avenue SE James Madison Bulding Washington, DC 20559-6000 www.copyright.gov w Organization of the U. S. Copyright Office inside ÿ annual report of the register of copyrights the register of report annual Annual Report of the Register of Copyrights fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 · 2010 United States Copyright Office Library of Congress title page photo: United States Copyright Office Library of Congress’s 101 Independence Avenue SE James Madison Bulding Washington, DC 20559-6000 www.copyright.gov w Organization of the U. S. Copyright Office inside ÿ Organization of the U. S. Copyright Office August 23, 2010 register of copyrights Marybeth Peters associate register associate register for registration & for policy & chief operating officer general counsel recordation international affairs Elizabeth R. Scheffler David O. Carson Nanette Petruzzelli Maria A. Pallante associate chief operating officer registration & recordation David Christopher program manager Susan Todd chief, administrative services office Bruce J. McCubbin chief, copyright technology office Doug Ament visual arts & performing arts information & records receipt analysis copyright acquisitions literary division recordation division licensing division division division & control division division Ted Hirakawa, Chief John H. Ashley, Chief James B. Enzinna, Chief Melissa Dadant, Chief David Christopher, Acting Chief Victor A. Holmes, Acting Jewel A. Player, Chief Vacant, Asst. Chief William R. Briganti, Asst. Mark L. DiNapoli, Asst.
    [Show full text]
  • 1979 Annual Report
    ANNUAL REPORT OF THE REGISTER OF COPYRIGHTS For the fiscal year ending September 30 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS / WASHINGTON / 1980 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 10-35017 ISSN 0090-2845 Key title: Annual report of the Register of Coprights This report is reprinted from the Annual Report of the Librarian of Congress for the fiscal year ending September SO, 1979 Contents The Copyright Office 1 Administration, Personnel, Fiscal Activity, Space 2 Production and Services 3 Processing Activities 3 Acquisitions and Compliance 3 Examining 4 Cataloging 5 Information and Reference Services 6 Records Management 6 Licensing 7 Automation 8 Cooperation with Other Departments of the Library 9 Copyright Deposit Collection 9 Other Cooperative Activities 9 Copyright Office Regulations 10 Special Projects 11 Committee to Negotiate Guidelines for Off-the-Air Videotaping for Educational Uses 11 Section 108 (i) Advisory Committee 11 Legislative Developments 11 Performance Royalty for Sound Recordings 11 Protection of Ornamental Designs of Useful Articles 12 Rights of Artists 12 Protection for Imprinted Design Patterns on Semiconductor Chips 12 Exemptions of Certain Performances and Displays 13 Other Legislative Activities 13 International Activities 15 The 1979Joint Meeting of the Intergovernmental Copyright Committee and the Executive Committee of the Berne Union 15 The Berne Question 15 Developing Nations and Copyright 16 International Training Programs 17 Cable Television 17 Satellite Convention 17 Computer Uses of Copyrighted Works 18 Translators 18 Other International Activities 18 Distinguished Foreign Visitors to the Copyright Office 19 Judicial Developments 19 Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright 19 Public Performance Rights and Related Topics 20 Infringement and Defenses 23 Related Rights 27 Tables : International Copyright Relations of the United States as of September 30.
    [Show full text]
  • Alpha-Numeric Code & Program Title
    G2: Who Owns This? Researching Copyright Status and Ownership Benjamin Keele & Carolyn Hersch, Speakers Alina Kelly, Moderator #AALL16 Presenters Benjamin Keele Research & Instructional Services Librarian Alina Kelly Indiana University Robert H. Head Librarian McKinney School of Law insert photo Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp, LLP Carolyn Hersch Senior Research Librarian inset photo Ropes & Gray LLP #AALL16 Takeaways • Identify the owners of registered copyrights. • Summarize how copyrights are created, registered, and documented. • Checklist of sources and workflow for research copyright ownership. #AALL16 Introduction • Copyright affects how we can use creative works • If your use is not covered by an exception (fair use, Section 108), you need to know if a work is still protected, or who holds the copyright #AALL16 Happy Birthday! • Lyrics to Happy Birthday = public domain. Marya v. Warner/Chappell Music, 131 F. Supp.3d 975 (C.D. Cal. 2015). https://www.flickr.com/photos/darkdwarf/8350702439/ CC BY-ND #AALL16 Digitization • Copyright Review Management System checked 600K works, found 320K were public domain. #AALL16 Definitions • Copyright: A form of protection provided by the laws of the United States for "original works of authorship.” • Includes literary, dramatic, musical, architectural, cartographic, choreographic, pantomimic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and audiovisual creations. #AALL16 Definitions • Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, title, principle, or discovery. • "Copyright" literally means the right to copy but has come to mean that body of exclusive rights granted by law to copyright owners for protection of their work. • Names, titles, slogans can not be copyrighted. #AALL16 Definitions • Copyright Notice: The copyright notice consists of three elements.
    [Show full text]
  • Ao I/(~~ MOTION of the ALLIANCE of ARTISTS and RECORDING COMPANIES to DISMISS the PILLAI 2011 DART SOUND RECORDINGS FUND/COPYRIGHT OWNERS SVBFUND CLAIM
    Q D Before the COPYRIGHT OFFICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Washington, D.C In the Matter of Distribution of DART Sound Recordings Docket No. Fund/ Copyright Owners Subfund Royalties For 2011 Ae/g- Ao i/(~~ MOTION OF THE ALLIANCE OF ARTISTS AND RECORDING COMPANIES TO DISMISS THE PILLAI 2011 DART SOUND RECORDINGS FUND/COPYRIGHT OWNERS SVBFUND CLAIM The Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies ("AARC") is a not-for-profit organization established to administer private copying royalties ("DART") pursuant to the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 ("AHRA"). AARC is the leading common agent representing featured recording artists and sound recording copyright owners in DART proceedings. AARC currently represents approximately 150,000 featured recording artists and sound recording copyright owners. AARC is an Interested Copyright Party ("ICP") in DART distribution proceedings pursuant to Section 1001(7)(D) ofAHRA, which defines an ICP as "any association or other organization that represents featured recording artists or sound recording copyright owners." 17 U.S.C. $ 1001(7)(D) (2006). Pursuant to AHRA, AARC files two joint claims annually for DART Sound Recordings Fund royalties, one for the organization's featured recording artist membership and one for the sound recording copyright owner membership. BRIEF ARGUMENT Pursuant to AHRA and the Copyright Royalty Board ("CRB") regulations, in order to substantiate a claim for DART a claimant must identify a basis for the claim. 17 U.S.C. $ 801(b)(4) (2006); 37 C.F.R. $ 360.22(b)(6). Unless a claimant can demonstrate that he or she has a legitimate basis for asserting a claim, the claim is patently deficient and warrants dismissal.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2015 Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office Robert Brauneis The George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Brauneis, Robert, Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office (December 31, 2014). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2611481 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2611481 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t o f f i c e Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office a report of the abraham l. kaminstein scholar in residence december 2014 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2611481 u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t o f f i c e Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office a report of the abraham l. kaminstein scholar in residence december 2014 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2611481 Transforming Document Recordation at the United States Copyright Office: A Report to the Register of Copyrights Robert Brauneis Abraham L.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Better Mousetrap: Patenting Biotechnology in the European Community
    9. 85.1 GREENBERG_FINAL(EDITED) (DO NOT DELETE) 12/12/2013 4:08 PM COPYRIGHT TROLLS AND PRESUMPTIVELY FAIR USES BRAD A. GREENBERG* The “troll” label, long a staple of the patent system, had little connotation and even less application in the copyright context until 2010. That is when the so-called copyright troll emerged to acquire unenforced copyrights being infringed in the digital marketplace. Trolls threaten to chill speech and discourage innovation by exploiting copyright incentives without contributing to the market for creative works. Yet, despite the copyright troll’s conspicuous arrival, little scholarship has discussed how trolls undermine copyright policy goals or potential measures for mitigating the harms they impose. This Article is the first to hone in on the fair use doctrine as copyright law’s internal limitation on the enforcement-only business model. Fair use’s judicial development predates the original United States copyright law and was codified in the 1976 Copyright Act, which neither expanded nor limited the scope of this equitable defense to infringement. The doctrine remains flexible and robust—and well-tailored to raising a presumptive bar to troll-related litigation. After defining the “copyright troll” and documenting its quick rise, this Article argues that, in troll-related litigation, burden shifting is warranted under traditional fair use analysis for three reasons: (1) there is no market harm because the troll has no market other than litigation; (2) the secondary use is for a different purpose and thus transformative; and (3) courts may excuse infringements because enforcement would not support the objectives of copyright law.
    [Show full text]