Skip to content

Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.

Petition for certiorari denied on November 6, 2017

Docket No. Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
17-168 N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2017

Issue: (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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
06/01/2017Application (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.
06/07/2017Application (16A1197) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 14, 2017.
07/10/2017Application (16A1197) to extend further the time from July 14, 2017 to July 28, 2017, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
07/14/2017Application (16A1197) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until July 28, 2017.
07/28/2017Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 1, 2017)
08/22/2017Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 2, 2017.
09/01/2017Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Law Professors filed.
09/28/2017Brief of respondent Electronic Arts Inc. in opposition filed.
10/11/2017Reply of petitioner Robert Antonick filed.
10/18/2017DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2017.
11/06/2017Petition DENIED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.