This case concerns Appellant Peter Brownstein’s claim under the Copyright Act seeking a declaratory judgment of joint authorship of an ethnic identification system that he created with Appellee Tina Lindsay, the Lindsay Cultural Identification Determinate (“LCID”). Lindsay purports to have conveyed the copyrights to the LCID to Appellee Ethnic Technologies (“E-Tech”). The contested work

Big Sky Brewing Co. sued Anhieuser-Busch Cos., Inc. on copyright infringement and trademark infringement theories claiming that the use of "Hold my beer and watch this" which Busch was using on You Tube videos ads for Bud Light. Big Sky which make "Moose Drool," "Trout Slayer" and "Slow Elk" brand beers claimed that it had been using the slogan since 2004.

The United States of America charged Ross Ulbricht with creating and operating the SilkRoad, the world's largest and most notorious black market for drugs including but not limited to cocaine, herion and LSD. The Government claimed that Ulbricht used Tor to highly encrypt traffic to and from the website and using the alias "Dread Pirate Roberts" to hide his identity. SilkRoad was a market place

This case presents the latest chapter in extensive litigation over the Baltimore Ravens “Flying B” logo. Frederick Bouchat challenges the National Football League’s use of the logo in three videos featured on its television network and various websites, as well as the Baltimore Ravens’ display of images that include the logo as part of exhibits in its stadium “Club Level” seating area.

21 Plaintiff-Appellant Brian Anthony Martinez (“Martinez”) appeals from a
22 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
23 York (Furman, J.), dismissing his complaint for improper venue under Rule
24 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Martinez brought this action
25 against his former employer, Bloomberg LP (“Bloomberg”), a

Plaintiffs Alexander Graham-Sult and David Graham appeal the district court’s disposition of: (1) a motion to dismiss; (2) a special motion to strike under California’s anti- SLAPP statute; and (3) related attorney’s fees awards.

GRAHAM-SULT V. CLAINOS 5

We affirm the disposition of the motion to strike in part and reverse in part. Striking Plaintiffs’ conversion and unjust e

This case presents the latest chapter in extensive litigation over the Baltimore Ravens “Flying B” logo. Frederick Bouchat challenges the National Football League’s use of the logo in three videos featured on its television network and various websites, as well as the Baltimore Ravens’ display of images that include the logo as part of exhibits in its stadium “Club Level” seating area.

Authors Guild, Inc, et al. sued Google, Inc. on copyright violation theories claiming that Google's plan to digitally copy millions of books for an online library without their permission constituted copy right violations and should be enjoined by the Court.

Google claimed that its digital library constituted a "fair use" of the materials and moved for dismissal.

We are invited to decide the ownership of copyrights in several motion pictures. The question is whether the threeyear statute of limitations in the Copyright Act applies.

I

This appeal is the latest chapter in a decade-long quest by Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Limited (“Seven Arts”)1 to establish ownership of copyrights in several motion pictures—as relevant here: Rules of

We agreed to hear this case en banc to clarify whether the
statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) of the Federal
Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) may be equitably tolled. We hold
that § 2401(b) is not “jurisdictional,” and that equitable
tolling is available under the circumstances presented in this
case.
I. BACKGROUND
A. Statutory Background
The FTCA conta

This case concerns the licensing rights for several early musical recordings by reggae legends Bob Marley and the Wailers. When the music was initially recorded in Jamaica in the 1960s, record keeping was not a primary concern. The absence of legal documentation has led to confusion in the marketplace as to which entities own licensing rights for these recordings.

Defendants Universal Mus

The subject of this appeal is the reach of New York Stateʹs long‐arm statute in the context of alleged infringement of intellectual property. At issue is section 302(a)(3)(ii) of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, and in particular its requirement that the allegedly tortious conduct of the individual over whom personal jurisdiction is asserted under that section ʺcaus[ed] injury to per

Julia Copeland Cooper (Copeland) appeals from a grant of summary judgment dismissing on statute of limitations grounds her Copyright Act claims against NCS Pearson, Inc. for co-ownership of a psychological test. The statute of limitations for claims under the Copyright Act is three years. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). Because any such claims available to Ms. Copeland would have accrued in 1993 or 1996 and

Plaintiff-Appellant Fahs Construction Group, Inc. (“Fahs”), a general contractor that provided roadway construction and paving services to the New York State Department of Transportation (“DOT”), appeals from a December 7, 2012 judgment of the District Court (Glenn T. Suddaby, Judge) dismissing its First Amendment and Equal Protection claims against Defendant-Appellee Michael Gray, a const

27 This appeal requires us to revisit our case law
28 applying the work-for-hire doctrine in the context of
29 section 304 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (or, the "1976
2
1 Act"), 17 U.S.C. § 304. Defendants-counter-claimants2
appellants Lisa, Neal, Susan, and Barbara Kirby
3 (collectively, the "Kirbys") are the children of the late
4 Jack Kirby. Kirby is considered one

This case requires us to answer a classic personal jurisdiction question— who was injured, and where? The answer to that question will determine whether the representative of a Canadian-owned Delaware corporation operating exclusively in Oklahoma may sue the corporation’s Canadian officers and directors in Oklahoma.

To bring a suit, the plaintiff must show the defendants are subject to

Plaintiff-appellee The Authors Guild, an association of authors, as well as several individual authors (jointly, “plaintiffs”), began this suit in 2005, alleging that defendant-appellant Google Inc. (“Google”) committed copyright infringement through the Library Project of its “Google Books” search tool by scanning and indexing more than 20 million books and making available for public

This case requires us to determine whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise Clause protect the plaintiffs—two companies and their owners who run their businesses to reflect their religious values. The companies are Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain, and Mardel, a Christian bookstore chain. Their owners, the Greens, run both companies as closely held family businesses an

Two women then resident in New York were married in a lawful ceremony in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Edith
Windsor and Thea Spyer returned to their home in New York City. When Spyer died in 2009, she left her entire estate to Windsor. Windsor sought to claim the estate tax exemption for surviving spouses. She was barred from doing so, however, by a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, which

Joel Tenenbaum illegally downloaded and distributed music for several years. A group of recording companies sued Tenenbaum, and a jury awarded damages of $675,000, representing $22,500 for each of thirty songs whose copyright Tenenbaum violated. Tenenbaum appeals the award, claiming that it is so large that it violates his constitutional right to due process of law. We hold that the award did not

Mr. Shengyang Zhou pled guilty to trafficking and attempted trafficking of counterfeit goods in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2320 and § 2. He was sentenced to eighty-seven months’ imprisonment and three years’ supervised release, and he was ordered to pay restitution of $507,567. Mr. Zhou contends the district court made a number of errors in sentencing him. We disagree and affirm.

I.

In 2009, Appellant Ryan Hart (“Appellant” or “Hart”)1 brought suit against Appellee Electronic Arts, Inc. (“Appellee” or “EA”) for allegedly violating his right of publicity as recognized under New Jersey law. Specifically, Appellant‟s claims stemmed from Appellee‟s alleged use of his likeness and biographical information in its NCAA Football series of videogames. The District

In this copyright infringement case, Enterprise Management Limited, Inc.,1 and Mary Lippitt (collectively Lippitt) appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Donald Warrick. Lippitt contends, contrary to the district court’s holding, she demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright infringement. We agree.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a diagram Lippitt created in the course

Abraham Lincoln told a story about a lawyer who tried to establish that a calf had five legs by calling its tail a leg. But the calf had only four legs, Lincoln observed, because calling a tail a leg does not make it so.1 Before us is a case about a lawyer who tried to establish that a company owned a

4 RIGHTHAVEN LLC V. HOEHN

copyright by drafting a contract calling the company the

5 In 2000, Patrick Cariou published Yes Rasta, a book of classical portraits and landscape
6 photographs that he took over the course of six years spent living among Rastafarians in Jamaica.
7 Richard Prince altered and incorporated several of Cariou’s Yes Rasta photographs into a series
8 of paintings and collages, called Canal Zone, that he exhibited in 2007 and 2008, first at the<