Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
Petition for certiorari denied on November 6, 2017
Issues: (1) Whether, to determine infringement between original and allegedly infringing works of computer code, it is sufficient that the jury, assisted by expert testimony, finds the copyrightable elements to be substantially similar, or conversely, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held, whether expert testimony is prohibited simply because juries assess infringement from the perspective of the “ordinary reasonable person”; and (2) whether, in a case involving computer code where access to the original work is conceded, other reliable proof demonstrates the content, and the defendant does not object under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the factfinder can determine that copying took place, or conversely, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held, whether the Copyright Act mandates that the original and infringing works be in evidence at trial.
Date | Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding) |
---|
Jun 01 2017 | Application (16A1197) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 14, 2017 to July 14, 2017, submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
Jun 07 2017 | Application (16A1197) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 14, 2017. |
Jul 10 2017 | Application (16A1197) to extend further the time from July 14, 2017 to July 28, 2017, submitted to Justice Kennedy. |
Jul 14 2017 | Application (16A1197) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 28, 2017. |
Jul 28 2017 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 1, 2017) |
Aug 22 2017 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 2, 2017. |
Sep 01 2017 | Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Law Professors filed. |
Sep 28 2017 | Brief of respondent Electronic Arts Inc. in opposition filed. |
Oct 11 2017 | Reply of petitioner Robert Antonick filed. |
Oct 18 2017 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017. |
Nov 06 2017 | Petition DENIED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. |