单选题 X.(IntellectualProperties) WenowaddressthedegreetowhichtheSupremeCourt'sdecisioninQualityKinginvalidatesthiscircuit'sconstructionof§109(a).ThispanelmayoverruleBMGMusic,DrugEmporium,andDenbicareifQualityKing―undercut[s]thetheoryorreasoningunderlyingthepriorcircuitprecedentinsuchawaythatthecasesareclearlyirreconcilable.‖ ItisclearthatQualityKingdidnotdirectlyoverruleBMGMusic,DrugEmporium,andDenbicare.QualityKinginvolved―roundtrip‖importation:aproductwithaU.S.-copyrightedlabelwasmanufacturedinsidetheUnitedStates,exportedtoanauthorizedforeigndistributor,soldtounidentifiedthirdpartiesoverseas,shippedbackintotheUnitedStateswithoutthecopyrightowner'spermission,andthensoldinCaliforniabyunauthorizedretailers.TheCourtheldthat§109(a)canprovideadefensetoanactionunder§602(a)inthiscontext.However,becausethefactsinvolvedonlydomesticallymanufacturedcopies,theCourtdidnotaddresstheeffectof§109(a)onclaimsinvolvingunauthorizedimportationofcopiesmadeabroad.(Ginsburg,J.,concurring)(―Wedonottodayresolvecasesinwhichtheallegedlyinfringingimportsweremanufacturedabroad.‖).Moreover,theCourtneverdiscussedthescopeof§109(a)ordefinedwhat―lawfullymadeunderthistitle‖means. WenextconsiderwhetherthereasoningofQualityKingisclearlyirreconcilablewithourgeneralrulethat§109(a)islimitedtocopies―legallymade...intheUnitedStates.‖Thebasisforthatrulewasourconcernthatapplying§109(a)toforeign-madecopieswouldviolatethepresumptionagainsttheextraterritorialapplicationofU.S.law.QualityKingdismissedasimilarconcernthatthetriggeringof§109(a)byforeignsaleswouldrequireaninvalidextraterritorialapplicationoftheCopyrightAct,explainingthatmerelyrecognizingtheoccurrenceofsuchsales―doesnotrequiretheextraterritorialapplicationoftheActanymorethan§602(a)'s?acquiredabroad‘languagedoes.‖Costcocontendsthatthisexplanationisirreconcilablewithourinterpretationof§109(a)inBMGMusic. WerejectCostco'scontentionandholdthattheSupremeCourt'sbriefdiscussiononextraterritorialityisnot―clearlyirreconcilable‖withourgenerallimitationof§109(a)tocopiesthatarelawfullymadeintheUnitedStates.ThecommonunderstandingofthepresumptionagainstextraterritorialityisthataU.S.statute―appliesonlytoconductoccurringwithin,orhavingeffectwithin,theterritoryoftheUnitedStates,unlessthecontraryisclearlyindicatedbythestatute.‖ OmegaS.A.v.CostcoWholesale

单选题 WhichofthefollowingstatementisNOTtrueaccordingtotheparagraphs?

单选题 ThesecondissuethecourtinOmegaS.A.v.CostcoWholesaleconsiderediswhether

单选题 Theunderlinedsentencemeansthat

A、 Quality King dismissed an invalid extraterritorial application of the Copyright Act.
B、 merely recognizing the occurrence of foreign sales does not require the extraterritorial application of the Act any more.
C、 the triggering of § 109(a) by foreign sales would require an extraterritorial application of the Copyright Act.
D、 the concern that the triggering of § 109(a) by foreign sales would require an invalid extraterritorial application of the Copyright Act was rejected in Quality King.

单选题 Whichofthefollowingstatementisbesttodescribethelastparagraph?

A、 The court‘s view on the application scope of § 109(a) is not irreconcilable with the Supreme Court‘s view on extraterritoriality.
B、 Costco's contention was rejected because it contradicts the Supreme Court's view on extraterritoriality.
C、 The general understanding of extraterritoriality does not conflict with the Supreme Court's view on the same topic.
D、 A United States statute applies only to conduct occurring within, or having effect within, the territory of the United States.