DEADLINE_LEGAL_patten_100UPDATE, 10:12 AM: MGM has responded to the ruling: ”While we agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that laches is an available mgm__130913144151-200x137__131115203538__140404182022-150x137defense against stale copyright claims, the Supreme Court has spoken,” MGM lawyer Mark Perry of DC-based Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher told me today. “The decision, however, does not end this matter as we continue to believe that the plaintiff’s case is legally and factually unsupportable. We look forward to vindicating our rights in the film Raging Bull in the lower courts.” What this politely means: this is going to be a no-holds-barred grudge match.

Raging-Bull__120704025208-200x225__131001212635PREVIOUS, 7:44 AM: It’s not a total TKO, but the Supreme Court today gave the green light to Paula Petrella to take her Raging Bull copyright lawsuit against MGM back into the ring. In an opinion from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, the SCOTUS said in a 6-3 vote that Petrella, daughter of deceased screenwriter Frank Petrella, could pursue a lawsuit against MGM for infringing the copyright of a 1963 screenplay upon which she says the movie was based. The younger Petrella first launched her $1 million suit in 2009 after the release of the latest DVD of the 1980 Martin Scorsese film on the life of boxer Jake LaMotta. MGM claimed that the doctrine of laches barred any such legal action. Separate from the statue of limitations, the doctrine is meant to prevent lawsuits being filed after long delays. Read More »