Colts v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that, although claims for misappropriation of “hot news” are not always preempted by the Copyright Act, the plaintiff did not meet the criteria for this narrow exception
• noting that “recorded broadcasts of [sporting events] . . . are . . . entitled to copyright protection”
• stating that a requirement that a misrepresentation address an “inherent quality or characteristic of the product . . . is essentially one of materiality, a term explicitly used in other circuits.” (cleaned up)
• noting that “recorded broadcasts of [sporting events]... are... entitled to copyright protection”
• finding preemption of the NBA’s misappropriation claim against Motorola for copying and distributing NBA scores via a consumer paging device without the NBA’s permission
• requiring materiality to be shown by “‘misrepresent[ations of] an “inherent quality or characteristic”’ of the product” (quoting Nat’l Ass’n of Pharm. Mfrs., Inc. v. Ayerst Lab’ys, 850 F.2d 904, 917 (2d Cir. 1988))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).