Aereo Asks Court to Rule Out Future Lawsuits
Online TV service Aereo wants a federal court to stop the threat of additional lawsuits from broadcasters as it moves into new jurisdictions by ruling that its system of tiny, individual antennas doesn’t violate copyright laws, according to documents filed Monday. Already in the midst of a lawsuit brought in New York by major broadcasters including Fox and CBS, Aereo told the U.S. District Court in New York that it plans to expand to Boston later this month, and that CBS has said it will sue Aereo again there if it does expand.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Aereo called the threatened lawsuits “do-overs” and said it was not proper for CBS to try to “re-litigate” cases that are still pending in New York. In an emailed comment Tuesday, CBS called the filing a “public relations” move, and said “wherever Aereo attempts to operate there will be vigorous challenges to its illegal business model.” Aereo’s filings ask the court for a declaratory judgment that its technology -- a system of tiny individual antennas that record broadcast TV and allow users to watch it online -- doesn’t violate copyright.
Although Aereo’s filings don’t explain how that would head off future lawsuits, Pillsbury broadcast attorney John Hane said a federal ruling that Aero isn’t violating copyright would be a powerful tool in future court proceedings -- and even some current ones. Hane is a broadcast attorney with no client in this case. The broadcasters’ current case against Aereo is still on hold in the New York lower court while the parties wait for the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule whether it will rehear the broadcasters’ case for a preliminary injunction en banc (CD April 17 p5). Hane said if the lower court ruled in Aereo’s favor on the declaratory judgment, the current case might be superseded: “If a judge rules [in Aereo’s favor] on this, there’s no need to have a trial.”
However, Hane said the sweeping effects of such a ruling may be why it wouldn’t occur. “I don’t know why a judge would rule on this with the other case still going on.” Hane said Aereo may be trying to prevent its case from being tested in new jurisdictions that may not be as friendly as the 2nd Circuit, which has ruled twice in Aereo’s favor. Similar copyright litigation against Aereo competitor Aereokiller in the 9th Circuit (CD April 5 p9) has shown that other courts feel differently about the issues in the case. Hane said a ruling on the declaratory judgment in the 2nd Circuit could be used to keep other jurisdictions from getting a crack at the case. “When you've got a friendly court you want to get as much out of them as possible while you can,” Hane said. In its filing, Aero said it plans to expand its service to Boston starting May 15.