"The Supreme Court today reversed the billion-dollar copyright verdict against Cox Communications, holding that an internet service provider cannot be held contributorily liable for its users' copyright infringement simply because it knows about the infringement and continues providing service."
"Unlike patent law, the copyright statute does not include a particular statutory framework for contributory infringement. For decades, however, the Supreme Court has attempted to treat the two doctrines in parallel."
"The court continued this approach and solidified contributory copyright liability to just two pathways: inducement and providing a service 'tailored to infringement.' Because Cox did neither, its continued provision of internet service to subscribers flagged as past and future infringers did not make it an infringer."
"The Court's insistence that knowledge of infringement is not enough for secondary liability is a troubling signal for the branded pharmaceutical company trying to hold a generic manufacturer liable for induced patent infringement."
The Supreme Court reversed a billion-dollar copyright verdict against Cox Communications, stating that an ISP cannot be held contributorily liable for users' copyright infringement just because it is aware of the infringement. The court established that contributory copyright liability is limited to inducement and providing services tailored to infringement. Since Cox did not engage in either, it was not liable. This ruling aligns with previous decisions and raises concerns for pharmaceutical companies regarding secondary liability in patent infringement cases.
Read at patentlyo.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]