Intellectual Property Law
New Matter SUMMER 2016, Volume 41, Number 2
Content
- 2016 D.C. Trip Report
- 2016 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Contents
- Copyright Commentary
- Google Books: Court's Conflation Creates Confusion
- Intellectual Property Section Executive Committee 2015-2016
- Intellectual Property Section Interest Group Representatives 2015-2016
- Interest Group Reports
- International Ip Developments
- Legislation Update
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- The Licensing Corner
- The State Bar of California Intellectual Property Alumni
- Ttab Decisions and Developments
- Case Comments
Case Comments
LOWELL ANDERSON
Stetina Brunda Garred & Brucker
COPYRIGHTS – CONTEMPT
Defendant was enjoined from providing video on demand equipment and services using remote servers with separate transmitters for each subscriber. After the Supreme Court decision in ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, 134 S.Ct. 2498 (2014), the Defendant announced it qualified for a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. § 111 and began providing equipment contrary to the injunction. The Defendant neither immediately applied for such license nor sought leave of court to modify or clarify the injunction. A $10,000 per day contempt award to ensure compliance with the injunction was affirmed, as was an award of attorney’s fees under a settlement agreement. CBS Broad., Inc. v. Film-On.com, Inc., 814 F.3d 91, 117 U.S.P.Q.2d 1685 (2d Cir. 2016).