laches

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, today that the doctrine of laches, or undue delay, does not bar the heir of the coauthor of a screenplay that was that the basis of the boxing film, "Raging Bull," from suing for copyright infringement, Forbes reports. The ruling sets up a three-year rolling period in which copyright owners can sue for infringement, but they only can sue for profits earned during that three-year window.

There was an unusual lineup in the court's majority and dissent: "Conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined in an opinion by liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, while Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy joined a dissent by equally liberal Stephen Breyer," Forbes also reports.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Raging Bull copyrght case today. Reuters reports. The plaintiff, who inherited rights to the screenplay after her father's death in 1981, is seeking damages for alleged copyright violations. MGM, however, raised a laches defense, arguing that the plaintiff took too long to seek redress.

Lawyers for the Onondaga Nation are not very hopeful that their land claim will get accepted for review, much less get a positive ruling, from the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices ruled that the equitable doctrine of laches barred the land claim of the Oneida Nation, another Haudenosaunee/Iroquois tribe based in New York. However: the "Onondaga’s land rights lawsuit is framed differently from the Oneida and Cayuga cases. It brings environmental issues to the forefront for the first time, naming as defendants various corporations because of the destruction they caused to the land and water. The Onondaga claim crucially does not seek possession of the lands, taxing authority, eviction of the people who live on the land or any action other than acknowledgment that the lands were unlawfully taken from the Nation," Indian Country Today reported.