|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-866||6th Cir.||Oct 31, 2016||Mar 22, 2017||6-2||Thomas||OT 2016|
Holding: A feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976 only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic or sculptural work -- either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression -- if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated; that test is satisfied here.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on March 22, 2017. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 5 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 8, 2016)|
|Jan 21 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 4, 2016.|
|Feb 5 2016||Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed.|
|Feb 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of FormLabs Inc., et al. filed.|
|Mar 4 2016||Brief of respondents Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 23 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 15, 2016.|
|Mar 23 2016||Reply of petitioner Star Athletica, L.L.C. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 18 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 22, 2016.|
|Apr 25 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 29, 2016.|
|May 2 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|May 10 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|May 17 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents.|
|May 26 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 15, 2016.|
|May 26 2016||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 14, 2016.|
|May 26 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Royal Manticoran Navy: The Official Honor Harrington Fan Association, Inc. filed.|
|Jul 15 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 15 2016||Brief of petitioner Star Athletica, L.L.C. filed.|
|Jul 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Professors Christopher Buccafusco and Jeanne Fromer filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.|
|Jul 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 2 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT On Monday, October 31, 2016|
|Sep 9 2016||Record has been requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.|
|Sep 14 2016||Brief of respondents Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Sep 15 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Michigan ( 2 Boxes ).|
|Sep 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed.|
|Sep 21 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Sep 21 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Sep 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Professors Jeannie Suk Gersen and C. Scott Hemphill filed.|
|Sep 21 2016||Brief amici curiae of Fashion Law Institute, et al. filed.|
|Sep 21 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Chosun International, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 21 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Council of Fashion Designers of America, Inc. filed.|
|Sep 28 2016||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 11 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 14 2016||Reply of petitioner Star Athletica, L.L.C. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 31 2016||Argued. For petitioner: John J. Bursch, Caledonia, Mich. For respondents: William M. Jay, Washington, D. C.; and Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Mar 22 2017||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Kennedy, J., joined.|
|Apr 24 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.