Case name: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.Opinion filed: 2005-06-27Docket No.: 04-480Citations:• 162 L. Ed. 2d 781• 125 S. Ct. 2764• 545 U.S. 913• 2005 U.S. LEXIS 5212Case holding summaries:• discussing the evidence that “StreamCast and Grokster,” each a corporate entity, “communicated an inducing message to their software users”• describing Napster as a “notorious file-sharing service”• describing the import of defendants’ “efforts to supply services to former Napster users”• describing the “device” as “the software in this case”• "Some musical performers, for example, have gained new audiences by distributing their copyrighted works for free across peer-to-peer networks, and some distributors of unprotected content have used peer-to-peer networks to disseminate files, Shakespeare being an example."• describing Napster as a "notorious file-sharing service"• "One who makes and sells articles which are only adapted to be used in a patented combination will be presumed to intend the natural consequences of his acts; he will be presumed to intend that they shall be used in the combination of the patent." (internal quotation marks omitted)• “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement, and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it.” (internal citations omitted)• explaining that peer-to-peer networks permit the users' computers to "communicate directly with each other, not through central servers"• endorsing the use of “rules of fault-based liability derived from the common law” in assessing liability for contributory infringement• acknowledg- ing “the need to keep from trenching on regular commerce or discouraging the development of technologies with law- ful and unlawful potential”• “The classic instance of inducement is by advertise- ment . . . that broadcasts a message designed to stimulate others to commit violations.” (emphasis added)• “The inducement rule . . . Case: 18-1976 Document: 187 Page: 55 Filed: 08/05/2021 GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. 15 premises liability on purposeful, culpable expression and conduct . . . .”• “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement.”• “[W]here an article is good for nothing else but infringement, there is no injustice in presuming or imputing an intent to infringe.”• detailing the process of file-sharing and how P2P services are used for infringing activity• requiring that a defendant “profit[] from” and “declin[e] to exercise a right to stop or limit” infringement by a third party to establish vicarious infringement• apply- ing the inducement standard of patent law in a copyright WARSAW ORTHOPEDIC, INC. v. NUVASIVE, INC. 5 context and holding that circumstantial evidence demon- strated an “unmistakable” “unlawful objective” to induce infringement• re- quiring “[e]vidence of active steps . . . taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use” (internal quotations omitted)• “One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement.”• requiring evidence of direct infringement to support claim for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement• discussing secondary copyright liability doctrines• basing conclusion as to the likely existence of a substantial market for authorized copying upon general declarations, some survey data, and common sense• contributory liability for patent infringement may be found where a good's "most conspicuous use is one which will coöperate in an infringement when sale to such user is invoked by advertisement" of the infringing use• demonstrations by sales staff of infringing uses supported liability for inducement• defendant "failed to show that its service is ever used for any purpose other than to infringe" copyrights (emphasis added)• finding inducement where the use "depicted by the defendant in its promotional film and brochures infringes the . . . patent"• "Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts"• liability for inducement where one "actively and knowingly aid[s] and abet[s] another's direct infringement" (emphasis deleted)• "[E]vidence of actual knowledge of specific acts of infringement is required to hold a computer system operator liable for contributory copyright infringement."• recognizing "copyright holder's legitimate demand for effectivenot merely symbolicprotection"• "A person may be liable as a contributory infringer if the product or service it sells has no (or only slight) legal use"• noting a "significant potential for future authorized copying"• courts "must be circumspect" in construing the copyright laws to preclude distribution of new technologies• "Sony demonstrated a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders" would not object to time-shifting (emphasis added)• 7.3% of all Sony VCR use is to record sports programs; representatives of the sports leagues do not object• stating that an actor “infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement” if that actor has the right and ability to stop or limit the infringement• downloaded files copied from servers or directly from peer-to-peer network• "Evidence of active steps taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use, show an affirmative intent that the product be used to infringe."• noting that secondary liability for copyright infringement requires intentional inducement of direct infringement• "One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging direct infringement and infringes vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it." (citations omitted)• “[P]eer-to-peer networks are employed to store and distribute electronic files by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.”• "[T]hese doctrines of secondary liability emerged from common law principles and are well established in the law."• “The [staple article of commerce] doctrine was devised to identify instances in which it may be presumed from distribution of an article in commerce that the distributor intended the article to be used to infringe another’s patent, and so may justly be held liable for that infringe- ment.”• re- quiring “[e]vidence of active steps . . . taken to encourage direct infringement, such as advertising an infringing use or instructing how to engage in an infringing use” (internal quotations omitted)• explaining that “[a]lthough Sony’s advertisements urged consumers to buy the VCR to ‘record favorite shows’ or ‘build a library’ of recorded programs, neither of these uses was necessarily infringing” (citations omitted)