Ways Accompanies Our Review of Official Court Granted Certiorari

2764 125 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 545 U.S. 912 first and second displays to the third. Giv- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 380 en the presumption of regularity that al- F.3d 1154, affirmed, and the Supreme ways accompanies our review of official Court granted certiorari. action, see n. 9, supra, the Court has iden- Holding: The Supreme Court, Justice tified no evidence of a purpose to advance Souter, held that one who distributes a religion in a way that is inconsistent with device with the object of promoting its use our cases. The Court may well be correct to infringe copyright, as shown by clear in identifying the third displays as the fruit expression or other affirmative steps taken of a desire to display the Ten Command- to foster infringement, is liable for the ments, ante, at 2740, but neither our cases resulting acts of infringement by third par- nor our history support its assertion that ties. such a desire renders the fruit poisonous. Vacated and remanded. * * * Justice Ginsburg filed concurring opinion For the foregoing reasons, I would re- in which Chief Justice Rehnquist and Jus- verse the judgment of the Court of Ap- tice Kennedy joined. peals. Justice Breyer filed concurring opinion in which Justice Stevens and Justice O’Con- , nor joined. 1. Copyrights and Intellectual Property O77 One infringes a copyright contribu- 545 U.S. 913, 162 L.Ed.2d 781 torily by intentionally inducing or encour- METRO–GOLDWYN–MAYER aging direct infringement and infringes STUDIOS INC., et al., vicariously by profiting from direct in- Petitioners, fringement while declining to exercise a v. right to stop or limit it. GROKSTER, LTD., et al. 2. Patents O259(1) No. 04–480. Under patent law’s traditional ‘‘staple Argued March 29, 2005. article of commerce doctrine,’’ distribution of a component of a patented device will Decided June 27, 2005. not violate the patent if it is suitable for Background: Copyright holders including use in other ways. 35 U.S.C.A. § 271(c). songwriters, music publishers, and motion See publication Words and Phras- picture studios brought copyright infringe- es for other judicial constructions ment action against distributors of peer-to- and definitions. peer file sharing computer networking software. The United States District Court 3. Patents O227 for the Central District of California, Ste- One who makes and sells articles phen V. Wilson, J., 259 F.Supp.2d 1029, which are only adapted to be used in a granted partial summary judgment in fa- patented combination will be presumed to vor of the distributors on issues of contrib- intend the natural consequences of his utory and vicarious infringement, and acts; he will be presumed, for purpose of plaintiffs appealed. The United States resulting infringement action, to intend 545 U.S. 913 METRO–GOLDWYN–MAYER STUDIOS INC. v. GROKSTER 2765 Cite as 125 S.Ct. 2764 (2005) that they shall be used in the combination product may be put to infringing uses, and of the patent. 35 U.S.C.A. § 271(c). shows statements or actions directed to promoting infringement, the staple-article 4. Patents O227 rule set forth in Sony Corp. of America v. Where an article is good for nothing Universal City Studios, Inc., limiting the else but patent infringement, there is no imputing of culpable intent as a matter of legitimate public interest in its unlicensed law from the characteristics or uses of a availability, and there is no injustice in distributed product, will not preclude lia- presuming or imputing to one who makes bility for inducing copyright infringement. and sells the article an intent to infringe. 35 U.S.C.A. § 271(c). 8. Patents O259(1) Patent Act’s exemption from liability 5. Patents O259(1) for those who distribute a staple article of Patent law’s ‘‘staple article of com- commerce does not extend to those who merce doctrine’’ absolves the equivocal induce patent infringement. 35 U.S.C.A. conduct of selling an item with substantial § 271(b, c). lawful as well as unlawful uses, and limits liability for infringement to instances of 9. Copyrights and Intellectual Property more acute fault than the mere under- O77 standing that some of one’s products will Patents O227 be misused, leaving breathing room for Evidence of active steps taken to en- innovation and a vigorous commerce. 35 courage direct patent or copyright in- U.S.C.A. § 271(c). fringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an 6. Copyrights and Intellectual Property infringing use, show an affirmative intent O77 that the product be used to infringe, and a Although secondary liability for copy- showing that infringement was encouraged right infringement may not be imposed by overcomes the law’s reluctance to find lia- presuming or imputing intent to cause in- bility when a defendant merely sells a fringement solely from the design or dis- commercial product suitable for some law- tribution of a product capable of substan- ful use. tial lawful use, which the distributor knows is in fact used for infringement, this bar 10. Copyrights and Intellectual Property does not mean that a producer can never O77 be held contributorily liable for third par- One who distributes a device with the ties’ infringing use of a product capable of object of promoting its use to infringe substantial lawful use, notwithstanding an copyright, as shown by clear expression or actual purpose to cause infringing use, un- other affirmative steps taken to foster in- less the distributors had specific knowl- fringement, is liable for the resulting acts edge of infringement at a time when they of infringement by third parties. contributed to the infringement and failed 11. Copyrights and Intellectual Property to act upon that information. O77 7. Copyrights and Intellectual Property Mere knowledge of infringing poten- O77 tial or of actual infringing uses would not Where evidence goes beyond charac- be enough to subject to copyright infringe- teristics of product that may be used to ment liability a distributor of a product infringe copyrights or knowledge that such capable of infringing uses, nor would ordi- 2766 125 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 545 U.S. 913 nary acts incident to product distribution, encouraged the product to be used to in- such as offering customers technical sup- fringe; in such a case, the culpable act is port or product updates, support liability not merely the encouragement of infringe- in themselves; instead, liability for inducement but also the distribution of the tool ment of infringement is premised on pur- intended for infringing use. poseful, culpable expression and conduct, and thus does nothing to compromise legit- S 913Syllabus * imate commerce or discourage innovation having a lawful promise. Respondent companies distribute free software that allows computer users to 12. Copyrights and Intellectual Property share electronic files through peer-to-peer O77 networks, so called because the computers Proving that a message was sent out communicate directly with each other, not to potential copyright infringers is the pre- through central servers. Although such eminent but not exclusive way of showing networks can be used to share any type of that active steps were taken by message digital file, recipients of respondents’ soft- sender that distributed device capable of ware have mostly used them to share infringing uses, with the purpose of bring- copyrighted music and video files without ing about infringing acts, for purpose of authorization. Seeking damages and an contributory copyright infringement claim injunction, a group of movie studios and against sender, and of showing that in- other copyright holders (hereinafter fringing acts took place by using the de- MGM) sued respondents for their users’ vice distributed. copyright infringements, alleging that re- 13. Copyrights and Intellectual Property spondents knowingly and intentionally dis- O77 tributed their software to enable users to In the absence of other evidence of infringe copyrighted works in violation of intent to cause copyright infringement by the Copyright Act. distribution of a product with infringing Discovery revealed that billions of uses, a court would be unable to find con- files are shared across peer-to-peer tributory infringement liability as to one networks each month. Respondents who makes and sells the product merely are aware that users employ their soft- based on a failure to take affirmative steps ware primarily to download copyrighted to prevent infringement, if the device oth- files, although the decentralized net- erwise was capable of substantial nonin- works do not reveal which files are fringing uses. copied, and when. Respondents have 14. Copyrights and Intellectual Property sometimes learned about the infringe- O77 ment directly when users have e-mailed Inducement liability for copyright in- questions regarding copyrighted works, fringement goes beyond encouraging a and respondents have replied with particular consumer to infringe a copy- guidance. Respondents are not merely right, and the distribution of a product can passive recipients of information about itself give rise to liability where evidence infringement. The record is replete shows that the distributor intended and with evidence that when they began to * The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion the reader. See United States v. Detroit Tim- of the Court but has been prepared by the ber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of 282, 50 L.Ed. 499. 545 U.S. 914 METRO–GOLDWYN–MAYER STUDIOS INC. v. GROKSTER 2767 Cite as 125 S.Ct. 2764 (2005) distribute their free software, each of with no involvement by respondents be- them clearly voiced the objective that yond providing the software in the first recipients use the software to download place.

Load more