Seymour Auerbach v. Sverdrup Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “the fact that the federal government might benefit from the defendant’s copying of architectural plans because it subsequently will have ownership of the building does not make the United States a party to the copyright violation”
• explaining such evidence must be submitted to the trier of fact for evaluation of its sufficiency
• reversing the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based upon § 1498(b) because the defendant raising the jurisdictional bar failed to show that the government consented to or authorized any copyright infringement
• reversing the district court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based upon § 1498(b) because the defendant raising the jurisdictional bar failed to show that the government consented to or authorized any copyright infringement
• reversing the district court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction based upon § 1498(b) because the defendant raising the jurisdictional bar failed to show that the government consented to or authorized any copyright infringement
• characterizing dismissal pursuant to 1498(b) as “a dismissal for want of jurisdiction”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).