Costar Group, Incorporated v. Loopnet, Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
373 F.3d 544 · 2004
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (2007), Davis v. Blige (2007)
17 federal appellate · 10 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises · Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios Inc · Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“trespassed on the exclusive domain of the copyright owner.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Defs.’ Mem.”); (2) the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint ("Pl.’s Opp’n”); and (3) the Defendants' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint with Prejudice ("Defs.’ Reply”). In addition, the plaintiff has incorporated by reference the following pleadings: (1) the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Google, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and (2) the Plaintiff's Opposition to Yahoo!, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. 3 . Even if this Court, could conclude that the plaintiff makes an allegation of direct infringement, such a claim could not survive the defendants' dismissal motion. As the Fourth Circuit has held, an internet service provider "who owns an electronic facility that responds automatically to users' input is not a direct infringer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At bottom, we hold that ISPs, when passively storing material at the direction of users in order to make that material available to other users upon their request, do not ‘copy’ the material in direct violation of § 106 of the Copyright Act. Agreeing with the analysis in [Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., 907 F.Supp. 1361 (N.D.Cal.1995) ], we hold that the automatic copying, storage, and transmission of copyrighted materials, when instigated by others, does not render an ISP strictly liable for copyright infringement under §§ 501 and 106 of the Copyright Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.