The Supreme Court has been busy again this week, with two notable cert orders on Monday, three cases in oral argument, and four new decisions.
Tuesday, we told you about the Court's opinion in Filarsky v. Delia. Here's what you need to know about the week's other opinions.
Copyright Infringement Judgment Affirmed by Equally Divided Court
In Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Omega, S.A., No. 08-1423, a 4-4 split decision, the Supreme Court affirmed a judgment finding that Costco violated US copyright law by selling a particular line of watches without the watchmaker's permission. Justice Kagan took no part in the ruling.
Bilski v. Kappos, No. 08-964, involved a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes. The Court affirmed the denial of the application, holding that 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.
As the Court wrote: "The question in this case turns on whether a patent can be issued for a claimed invention designed for the business world. The patent application claims a procedure for instructing buyers and sellers how to protect against the risk of price fluctuations in a discrete section of the economy. Three arguments are advanced for the proposition that the claimed invention is outside the scope of patent law: (1) it is not tied to a machine and does not transform an article; (2) it involves a method of conducting business; and (3) it is merely an abstract idea. The Court of Appeals ruled that the first mentioned of these, the so-called machine-or-transformation test, was the sole test to be used for determining the patentability of a "process" under the Patent Act, 35 U. S. C. §101."
Related Resources
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 08-103, involved a class action alleging copyright infringement, in which the Court of Appeals vacated a settlement class certification order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
As the Court wrote: "In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a copyright holder's failure to comply with [17 U.S.C.] section 411(a)'s registration requirement deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to adjudicate his copyright infringement claim. We disagree. Section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a claim that does not restrict a federal court's subject-matter jurisdiction."
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, although 17 U.S.C. section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement claim, a copyright holder's failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.
Related Resources
