History of International News Service v. Associated Press in Timeline

International News Service v. Associated Press (1918) established the misappropriation doctrine in US intellectual property law. The Supreme Court held that INS was unfairly competing with AP by taking news gathered by AP and distributing it for profit. This created a "quasi-property right" for AP in its gathered news against INS, based on AP's investment of effort and money. The misappropriation doctrine remains controversial, with legal scholars debating its validity and scope, but it protects investments in intangible assets like information.

1918: Supreme Court Decides INS case

In 1918, the Supreme Court decided the INS case, permitting it to establish applicable tort law for the dispute between INS and AP.

1918: International News Service v. Associated Press Decision

In 1918, the United States Supreme Court decided International News Service v. Associated Press, also known as INS v. AP, which established the misappropriation doctrine of federal intellectual property common law, creating a "quasi-property right" against others based on investment in intangible assets.

1918: Federal Courts' Power in Commercial Matters

In 1918, the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, possessed the authority to create binding law in commercial matters like bills, notes, and torts, including negligence and business interference, under the doctrine of Swift v. Tyson.

1929: Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp. Decision

In 1929, the decision in Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Corp. was decided a decade after INS. The Second Circuit denied relief to the plaintiff seeking "hot-news" type of protection for fabric designs that were not practicably copyrighted or patented.

1938: Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. Decision

In 1938, the Supreme Court considered Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., denying relief in a case arguably akin to INS. Justice Brandeis wrote for the Court in the majority.

1938: Supreme Court Overrules Swift v. Tyson

In 1938, the Supreme Court, in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, overruled Swift v. Tyson, which had allowed federal courts to develop federal common law on matters not specifically addressed by state legislatures.

1960: American-Marietta Co. v. Krigsman Decision

In 1960, the decision in American-Marietta Co. v. Krigsman, involving a sponge-mop replacement. The Second Circuit held that the rule against nonfunctional copying is restricted to cases where the nonfunctional element has acquired a secondary meaning.

1964: Sears v. Stiffel and Compco v. Day-Brite Decisions

In 1964, the Supreme Court's decisions in Sears v. Stiffel and Compco v. Day-Brite weakened the application of the INS doctrine to prohibit copying product designs.

1967: First Circuit on INS Doctrine

In 1967, the First Circuit stated that INS "has clearly been overruled" due to the 1964 Sears and Compco decisions.

1972: Goldstein v. California Decision

Prior to 1972, federal copyright law didn't cover sound recordings. In Goldstein v. California in 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that a California statute against unlicensed record copying wasn't preempted by federal law since Congress hadn't regulated the matter.

1976: Copyright Act Pre-emption

After the 1976 Copyright Act, the Second Circuit held that New York law, as interpreted, was pre-empted.

1976: Effect of the 1976 Copyright Act

After the passage of the 1976 Copyright Act, the "hot news" doctrine began to face setbacks. The Second Circuit ruled that the "hot news" tort was largely pre-empted by the 1976 Act in the NBA case.

1991: Feist Case Elaboration

In 1991, the Supreme Court greatly elaborated the doctrine of U.S. copyright law that there is no copyright in facts, which was initially recognized in the INS decision.