‘Raging Bull’ heiress knocks out MGM’s laches defence
By Colin T Kemp, Kevin A Fong, Bobby Ghajar and Stephen E Berge
In Petrella v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc, the Supreme Court holds that laches cannot bar claims for damages for copyright infringement brought during the three-year limitations period.
On 19 May 2014, in a case concerning the copyright in the screenplay that led to the critically acclaimed movie Raging Bull, the US Supreme Court held that laches cannot be invoked to preclude adjudication of a claim for damages brought within the three-year statute of limitations. Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Ginsburg explained that laches is an equitable defence that cannot be applied to bar legal relief (such as claims for damages) in the face of Congress’s clear limitations period.
Petrella v MGM concerns whether the affirmative defence of laches can be applied during the statute of limitations period applicable to a copyright infringement claim. Before focusing on that issue and the court’s analysis, however, a brief overview of the applicable statute of limitations and the affirmative defence of laches may be helpful…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Whoever said ‘a verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on’ did not have this quite right and recent case law confirms they actually had it quite wrong.
US: corrective action catch 22 — Court of Federal Claims holds agency action must be rational even if GAO protest decision was not
The decision in RUSH reflects the unusual circumstance in which the court effectively sat in appellate review of an earlier bid protest decision by the GAO.