The decision is binding only within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
replySo it’s not correct to say “because SCOTUS denied cert, Thaler is now binding national copyright law.”
Practically speaking, it is binding on the US Copyright office (one of the parties in the case) in CADC. And that’s important. But copyright litigation happens all across the country, while this ruling only directly constrains the relatively small number of cases within CADC.
Although this decision is not binding in other circuit courts, this decision still is something that you can bring to a judge in other courts. They are not required to follow this ruling because they are not in that circuit. However, they still will consider what other courts have said and that will be incentive to think hard before they do something different. A judge who does something different is generally expected to write up a reason why they did something different, and that's something that would be given to an appeals court if they do do something different for consideration of why the other court was wrong.
replyYeah, I’ve heard lawyers use decisions in other jurisdictions to give weight to their line of reasoning. The SC saying they aren’t reviewing an appeal might not make that universally binding, but it signals that they don’t categorically reject the lower court’s decision.
replyI doubt any lawyer would mention the SC didn't review this - that is meaningless and judges know it. They will however mention this case. Even if they case goes against them they will mention it so they can say why it is wrong (the opposition will be sure to mention it so they have to be prepared to take it down)
replyAnd you’re saying the SC not taking up the issue has no effect on the weight of that non-binding citation in their argument, even if it was effectively the same situation in a different jurisdiction? The argument was that because the decision only had precedent in that circuit, the fact that the SC did not take the issue up has zero effect on decisions outside of that jurisdiction, even for essentially the same situation. If that’s what you’re arguing, I don’t buy it.
replyYes, I didn’t imply national precedence. I imagine it would also signal to attorneys appealing cases other circuits that the same challenge will likely yield the same result.
reply