Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

File-Sharing Related Copyright Infringement Matter and Antitrust, Insurance and Tax Cases

By FindLaw Staff on April 29, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

Arista Records LLC v. Doe 3, No. 09-0905, concerned defendant's appeal from the denial of defendant's motion to quash a subpoena served on an Internet service provider seeking the identities of people who illegally downloaded music.  The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that 1) the motion to quash the subpoena was not dispositive of the underlying action; 2) to the extent that anonymity is used to mask copyright infringement or to facilitate such infringement by other persons, it is unprotected by the First Amendment; and 3) defendant's expectation of privacy for sharing copyrighted music through an online file-sharing network was simply insufficient to permit him to avoid having to defend against a claim of copyright infringement.

Continental Ins. Co. v. Atlantic Ins. Co., No. 09-2882, involved an action against an insurer under New York Insurance Law Section 3420(a) for satisfaction of a default judgment against the insured.  The court of appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, on the ground that an exclusionary provision in the liability insurance policy barred coverage of the fire.

In re: Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, No. 05-2851, concerned an action claiming that defendant pharmaceutical companies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when they settled their dispute concerning the validity of Bayer's Cipro patent by agreeing to a reverse exclusionary payment settlement.  The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants, on the ground that patent settlements in which the generic firm agrees to delay entry into the market in exchange for payment fall within the scope of the patent holder's property rights.

US v. Moskowitz, Passman & Edelman, No. 08-3017, involved an action by the U.S. to enforce a tax levy against defendant law firm.  The Second Circuit affirmed judgment for the U.S., holding that the firm was obligated by the IRS's continuing levy on the partner's "salary," 26 U.S.C. section 6331(e), to surrender to the government the funds that it instead paid to the partner as "draws."

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard