This week, we focused on the certificate petition asking the Supreme Court to consider copyright law and how it defines the term “copyright management information”; lawyer-client privileges, and when to require law firms to disclose client information to the government; and pre-trial Appropriate standards for detainees’ medical treatment for constitutional defects.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court Award certificate in Unicolors, Inc v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LP. monochrome Raise technical issues of copyright law and procedures 17 USC § 411(b), Asking judges to clarify when the statute requires lower courts to submit copyright registration disputes to the United States Copyright Office. Fischer v Forrest The judge was asked to discuss another copyright issue, this time in the context of digital licensing. Fisher Covers the scope of the term “copyright management information”, as in 17 USC § 1202. Copyright management information is information about the owner of a work or its terms of use, which is communicated to potential licensees of the work.

in Fisher, The author includes his surname in the text of his copyrighted work; however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the author’s or copyright owner’s name is not sufficient as copyright management information unless the name is obvious from the context Related to copyright. The author opposes this narrow structure and believes that copyright management information can even exist in codes or symbols that cannot be interpreted by humans but are still worthy of legal protection. According to the petition, both the 3rd and 5th Circuit Courts adopted the plain text method and applied the broad definition of copyright management information in 17 USC § 1202. The author asked the judge to solve the problem of circuit splitting.

Contingency v Regalado Seek review by the Supreme Court to determine the legal standards for unconstitutional medical treatment of pretrial detainees.The petition establishes a 4-3 circuit court split on this issue. Four of the circuit courts require the pretrial detainee to defend and certify the prison defendant. Subjective know Their inadequate treatment poses a huge risk of serious injury, and the three circuit courts do not need to pre-trial detained plaintiffs to determine the defendant’s mentality. Here, the legal guardian of a pretrial detainee claimed that three prison officials failed to provide adequate care for the detainee’s mental symptoms and physical injuries. The lower court rejected these requests for failing to show the official’s state of mind. Guardians of detainees seek review to resolve differences and establish consistent standards for medical treatment that constitutes a constitutional flaw.

Finally, in Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm PLLC v. United States, The U.S. Internal Revenue Service audited a taxpayer and determined that legal advice received from a law firm caused the taxpayer to underpay the tax. After making this decision, the US Internal Revenue Service issued a “John Doe” subpoena to the law firm, requesting documents containing the identity of all clients seeking the same services as the audited clients. The law firm rejected the lawyer-client privilege, but the district court rejected the law firm’s privilege objection, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confirmed it on the grounds that the IRS agent “really did it.” Is not State the government know The substance of the legal advice provided by the company. The law firm seeks review by a judge, and believes that as long as the government knows about the confidential communication between the unknown client and the legal counsel or the client’s motive for retaining the company, regardless of whether any statement is informed or not, the lawyer-client privilege should be applied by the government.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

Contingency v Regalado
20-1562
problem: Can the pre-trial detainee outperform a prison official who ignores the obvious risk of serious injury, or whether the pre-trial detainee must prove that the official subjectively knows and ignores the risk of serious injury.

Cassirer v Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
20-1566
problem: Does the federal court hear state law claims under that state? Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act The choice of law rules of the court state must be applied to determine which substantive law governs disputed claims, or whether federal common law can be applied.

Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm PLLC v. United States
20-1596
problem: When the government knows the citizen’s confidential communication with legal counsel or the motivation for seeking advice but does not know the citizen’s identity, whether the document reflecting the client’s identity is protected by the lawyer-client privilege.

Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita, Inc.
20-1641
problem: (1) Whether the group health plan for reimbursing all dialysis treatments is complied Medicare Secondary Payer Act The group health plan may not “consider” the fact that plan participants with end-stage renal disease are eligible for Medicare benefits; (2) Does a plan provide all plan participants with the same dialysis benefits, regardless of whether the patient has Patients with end-stage renal disease will be reimbursed uniformly for dialysis providers, please follow Medicare Secondary Payer Act The group health plan may not “distinguish” patients with end-stage renal disease from others “in terms of the benefits they provide”; (3) Whether Medicare Secondary Payer Act It is a benefit coordination measure designed to protect medical insurance, not an anti-discrimination law designed to protect certain providers from the different effects of the so-called unified treatment.

Fischer v Forrest
20-1648
problem: (1) Is the name of the author of the copyrighted work Copyright management information Or whether it must be obvious from the context that the name is related to copyright; (2) Whether the name of the copyright owner of the copyrighted work is Copyright management information Or whether it must also be obvious from the context that the name is related to copyright.