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 Clarence Thomas on Mar 22, 2017. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined.
Proceedings & orders timeline
Jan 5, 2016Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 8, 2016)
Jan 21, 2016Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 4, 2016.
Feb 5, 2016Brief amici curiae of Public Knowledge, et al. filed.
Feb 8, 2016Brief amici curiae of FormLabs Inc., et al. filed.
Mar 4, 2016Brief of respondents Varsity Brands, Inc., et al. in opposition filed.
Mar 23, 2016DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 15, 2016.
Oct 31, 2016Argued. 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, 2017Adjudged 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, 2017JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Recommended Citation: Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/star-athletica-llc-v-varsity-brands-inc/