Briarpatch Limited, L.P., Gerard F. Rubin v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., Michael Medavoy, Geisler Roberdeau, Inc., Terence Malick

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “enrichment element,” like intent or awareness, limited claim’s scope but left its “fundamental nature unaltered”
• holding that an unjust enrichment claim is preempted when premised on the rights protected by the Copyright Act
• holding that declaratory judgment and unjust enrichment claims were preempted notwithstanding that plaintiff did not assert a copyright claim
• holding that the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim was preempted because the claim sought to vindicate its adaptation rights
• holding that a claim that “simply 14 seeks a declaration that [the defendant] has no rights in [the work at issue]” is preempted by the Copyright Act
• holding an unjust enrichment claim preempted because, although plaintiff must prove “enrichment,” the essential nature of the claim remained the unauthorized use of a work

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).