Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that section 411(a) “supplement[s]” the “broad underlying” 8 jurisdictional grants in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338 and acts as an additional “jurisdictional 9 prerequisite”
• stating that “the question of substantial similarity is typically left to the fact finders' own impressions.”
• concluding the district court did not err in denying attorney’s fees where the district court had “considered several complex and potentially dispositive pre-trial motions” and presided over a five-day trial
• awarding attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a copyright action “is the rule rather than the exception and [they] should be awarded routinely”
• upholding jury instruction that “correctly indicate[d] that the jury should compare the parts of the two songs that are similar in determining substantial similarity”
• excusing failure to register a copyright-which the court believed was a \jurisdictional prerequisite\ to an infringement suit-where the requirement was \satisf[ied] ... before final judgment \ (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).