Secure Services Technology, Inc. v. Time & Space Processing, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2014
2 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 103 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 109 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 117 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 205 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 408 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. · Gregory Lumber Co. v. United States
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Copyright laws make a distinction between copyright registration and receiving from the Copyright Office a certificate of registration. Under the copyright laws, copyright registration is presumed to have occurred from the moment the owner of the copyrightable material delivers his application and filing fee to the Copyright Office. 17 U.S.C. § 408 (a). For this reason, it has been sensibly held by the Fifth Circuit that, “[i]n order to bring suit for copyright infringement, it is not necessary to prove possession of a registration certificate. One need only prove payment of the required fee, deposit of the work in question, and receipt by the Copyright Office of a registration application.” Apple Barrel Productions, Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384, 386-87 (5th Cir.1984) (citing 2 Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][1]); see also Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294 , 296 n. 4 (4th Cir.1978) (securing registration is no longer prerequisite to an infringement suit). Were the law otherwise, the owner of a copyright would be left in legal limbo while the Copyright Office considers whether he qualifies for a certificate of registration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“information, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to and not being readily ascertainable by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 1498(b) applies only when the government expressly authorizes or consents to the copyright infringement, (citing Auerbach, 829 F.2d at 180-81 ). When, as here, the government was only an innocent facilitator of the copyright infringement, Section 1498(b) is inapplicable.”
1 later decision 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.