Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

VHT, Inc. v. Zillow Group, Inc., et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 17-35587, 17-35588 · judgment March 15, 2019


Certiorari denied · October 7, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 11% cert probability (95% interval 8%–15%)

Before the decision, about 2.7× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a business respondent.

Questions presented

The owner of a copyright holds the exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution, public display, and adaptation in his or her work. 17 U.S.C. § 106. Where a plaintiff establishes ownership of a work, any other party who violates those exclusive rights in the work has infringed the plaintiff’s copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). This case asks the Court to resolve the following questions, which determine when a party may be held liable for direct infringements:

  1. Whether a plaintiff must prove that a defendant engaged in some form of volitional conduct in order to prove direct copyright infringement, as described in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431 (2014).

  2. If so, whether that requirement is properly understood as (1) identical to common-law proximate causation, as the Ninth Circuit held here and as one member of the panel opined in BWP Media USA Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc., 922 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2019), or (2) a less demanding causation standard, as the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits have held, or (3) requiring only an affirmative act with a meaningful connection to the infringement, as suggested by other members of the Second Circuit panel in Polyvore.

  3. Whether a volitional conduct requirement insulates from liability for direct infringement defendants who create and maintain automated systems for making copies of content not requested by users, as the Ninth Circuit held, in conflict with this Court’s decision in Aereo and opinions of the D.C. and Second Circuits.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Stephen M. Rummage
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

For respondent
Ian Bradford Crosby
Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 07 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Aug 28 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
  3. Aug 12 2019
    Waiver of right of respondents Zillow Group, Inc. and Zillow, Inc. to respond filed.
  4. Jun 28 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 29, 2019.
  5. Jun 25 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 15, 2019 to August 29, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  6. Jun 13 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 15, 2019)