Starr v. Presence Central & Suburban Hospitals Network

Oral argument

• Argued

  40 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that under the 1909 Act, common law copyrights could be transferred orally or by implication from the conduct of the parties
• explaining that FedEx is not mail for purposes of service under Rule 4, and to interpret the term “mail” differently for purposes of different rules would cause great confusion
• stating that “[t]he logic of Eden Toys is particularly compelling in this case” and holding that a third-party infringer could not assert as a defense to an infringement claim the alleged invalidity of an oral transfer agreement that was later confirmed in writing
• “Because it is not apparent from the district court’s decision that it considered the factors listed in Fogerty, particularly the goal of deterring future copyright infringements, we remand for reconsideration of this issue.”
• “[U]nder some circumstances 19 a prior oral grant that is confirmed by a later writing becomes valid as of the time of the oral 20 grant[.]”
• “It seems clear that in interpreting the term ‘mail’ differently for the purposes of different rules within the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts are likely to cause great confusion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).