Author: Paul G. Anderson, Associate, Ritholz Levy Sanders Chidekel & Fields LLP
An action for declaratory judgment provides a party with the unique opportunity to obtain a preventative, binding ruling on “a case of actual controversy.” Crucially, if a declaratory judgment action does not involve an actual “case or controversy”, the matter will be summarily dismissed for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Declaratory relief is typically intended ‘to relieve potential defendants from the Damoclean threat threat of impending litigation which a harassing adversary might brandish, while initiating suit at his leisure—or never.’ Accordingly, it is unfortunately no surprise that declaratory judgment actions are fairly common occurrences in intellectual property law, where litigious threats by such “harassing adversar[ies]” and disputes over the use and/or ownership of intellectual property rights are routine. Moreover, since the Supreme Court’s MedImmune v. Gementech decision in 2007—which noticeably relaxed the “case or controversy” requirement for declaratory judgment suits—declaratory judgment suits over intellectual property rights have become even more prevalent, at least in the fields of patent and trademark.
A considerable portion of the patent and trademark legal community has criticized MedImmune for its noticeable impact on cease–and–desist letter drafting practices. However, as this somewhat controversial standard now circles the waters of copyright law, there is good reason to believe that MedImmune may be uniquely welcome in certain niche areas of the field—and in particular, media and entertainment.
(Click here to read the rest.)
The views expressed here are exclusively of the author and do not represent agreement or endorsement by the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, or Yeshiva University.
