T. B. Harms Company v. Edward Eliscu and Ross Jungnickel, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “if any aspect of the suit requires an interpretation of the Copyright Act, the complaint does not reveal it”
• dismissing an action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where no claim of copyright infringement was asserted and no relief provided by the Copyright Act was sought
• § 1338 jurisdiction if complaint “presents a case where a distinctive policy of the [Qopyright] Act requires that federal principles control the disposition of the claim”
• “[District] Judge Weinfeld treated the jurisdictional issue as turning solely on whether the complaint alleged any act or threat of copyright infringement. He was right in concluding that it did not.”
• question involving copyright dispute does not raise a “pivotal question of federal law”
• “The relevant statutes create no explicit right of action to enforce or rescind assignments of copyrights . . . [nor] to fix the locus of ownership.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).