Neil Gorsuch Questions ISP Liability in Copyright Infringement Case

Inferring Intent in Patent Law

• 💡 Justice Gorsuch questioned the lawyer about the two exclusive ways to infer intent under patent law: inducement and specially equipped things predominantly used for infringing purposes.
• ❓ The lawyer confirmed these are the codified ways to infer intent within patent law.

Common Law vs. Patent Law Standards

• ⚖️ Gorsuch contrasted patent law with common law, where intent could be inferred from a wider variety of things beyond the two specific buckets.
• 🗣️ He asked if the court should refrain from going back to common law standards due to the case being an implied cause of action.

ISP Liability and Copyright Law

• 🌐 The discussion focused on whether internet service providers (ISPs) should be held liable for user copyright violations.
• 🎯 The lawyer argued that for ISPs, the court should limit liability to patent law standards, especially concerning non-targeted assistance.
• 📌 The case examines when a provider of a good or service to the general public can be held liable for its misuse by a member of the public.

Knowledge vs. Purpose in Legal Analysis

• 🧐 Gorsuch pointed out the flaw in the lower court's decision, which acknowledged purpose language but inferred it from knowledge that an event was substantially certain to occur.
• ⚖️ He drew an analogy to equal jurisprudence, highlighting the difference between a state acting because of a disparate impact versus acting for race-neutral reasons even though it produces a disparate impact.