• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND CIRCUIT

American society of composers authors and publishers Vs. Mobitv incorporation (Decided on 22.05.2012)

Determination of royalty - Present Appeal filed for determination of proper royalty the Defendant/Appellant is entitled to receive for a blanket public performance license for music in the Appellant's repertory that is embodied in television and radio content to be delivered to viewers and listeners using mobile telephones

Held, Petitioner argued that Respondent was required to obtain a performance license for all unlicensed content that it streams, regardless of whether it had been assured by its upstream partner that such a license had already been procured. This objection lacked merit. If an upstream content provider had already acquired a TTTA license from Petitioner, it would be unfair to require Respondent to make a second payment for the same content. Furthermore, Respondent was entitled to rely on its upstream partner's assurances that it was protected and to manage the accompanying risk that the partner had not obtained the promised right. Petitioner for its part retained the power to protect its rights by bringing an infringement action against Respondent or any other party. As a result, the District Court did not err by construing the license to exclude such content. Hence, judgment of the District Court affirmed.

• LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT LAWS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Alday Vs. Raytheon Company (Decided on 21.05.2012)

Eligibility for healthcare coverage - Whether the employees/now retirees are contractually entitled to receive premium-free healthcare coverage until age 65, or whether the contracts on which the retirees rely as providing that entitlement allowed their prior employer to start charging them for their insurance

Held, In the instant case, Respondent Company expressly agreed to provide 100% company-paid healthcare coverage for eligible Retirees; that Respondent's obligation survived the expiration of the  CBAs; and that Respondent's agreed-upon obligation could not be unilaterally abrogated by Respondent regardless of the rights Respondent reserved for itself in plan documents because the CBAs did not incorporate the Plans' reservation-of-rights provisions with respect to employer contribution issues as opposed to issues relating to the provision of monetary or inkind benefits for particular medical services. It was further held that the District Court did not err in rejecting Retirees' claim for punitive and extra-contractual damages.