`
`
`
`No. 20A-_______
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`GEOPHYSICAL SERVICE, INCORPORATED,
`Applicant,
`
`v.
`TGS-NOPEC GEOPHYSICAL COMPANY,
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
`
`APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
`A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Don Cruse
` Counsel of Record
`Law Office of Don Cruse
`1108 Lavaca Street,
` Suite 110-436
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 853-9100
`don.cruse@texasappellate.com
`
`
`
`
`Rule 29.6 Statement
`
`
`
`The applicant, Geophysical Service, Incorporated, states that: (1) it has no
`
`parent corporation; and (2) no publicly held company owns 10% or more of its stock.
`
`i
`
`
`
`No. 20A-_______
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`GEOPHYSICAL SERVICE, INCORPORATED,
`Applicant,
`
`v.
`TGS-NOPEC GEOPHYSICAL COMPANY,
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
`A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`To the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Jr.,
`Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and
`Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit:
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 13.5, the applicant Geophysical Service, Inc.
`
`(GSI) moves for an extension of time of 30 days, to and including January 13, 2020, to file
`
`a petition for writ of certiorari to review the decision and judgment of the Fifth Circuit in
`
`Geophysical Service, Inc. v. TSG-NOPEC Geophysical Co., No. 18-20493 (5th Cir. Sept. 13,
`
`2019) (per curiam). Jurisdiction rests on 28 U.S.C. §1254(1). Absent an extension, the
`
`deadline for filing the petition for writ of certiorari would be December 12, 2019. This
`
`application is being filed at least 10 days before that date. S. Ct. R. 13.5. The request for
`
`extension is not opposed.
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This case presents important questions of copyright law, including the legal
`
`standard for determining the existence and proper scope of an “implied license” when a
`
`company in a regulated industry is required to deposit some of its copyrighted works with
`
`a foreign governmental regulator.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The dispute involves offshore seismographic survey materials created by
`
`GSI at its own expense, for the purpose of being licensed at a profit to other energy firms.
`
`The Fifth Circuit concluded that, by complying with a depository requirement of Canadian
`
`energy law, GSI had thereby conveyed an “implied license” under U.S. copyright law, and
`
`that this “implied license” was sufficiently broad for copies of its seismographic works to
`
`later be imported into the United States by TGS, a competing seismographic firm.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In its first opinion in this matter, the Fifth Circuit observed that this dispute
`
`involves “a question left open by Kirtsaeng I. … the difficult interpretive puzzle of what it
`
`means for a copy manufactured abroad to have been ‘lawfully made under this title’ within
`
`the meaning of §109.” Geophysical Serv. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Co., 850 F.3d 785,
`
`795 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013)).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`The Fifth Circuit explained how “the facts of the instant case supply a good
`
`example of the puzzle”:
`
`[A]as in Kirtsaeng I, the copies imported into the United States here were
`manufactured abroad, but unlike in Kirtsaeng I, the parties dispute whether
`those copies were lawfully made. TGS would have us look to Canadian law
`to determine the lawfulness of the Board’s making of the copies—it points
`to the fact that Canadian law appears to authorize the CNLOP Board to
`release copies of data submitted to it after ten years. Geophysical asks us
`instead to look to United States copyright principles … Applying foreign law
`
`2
`
`
`
`seems to contradict the plain language of §109.… But applying United
`States law seems to foul the principle that the Copyright Act has no
`extraterritorial application, and creates some conceptual awkwardness
`where, like here, the foreign-made copies were made pursuant to some legal
`regime that finds no analog in United States law.”
`
`850 F.3d at 795-96. The Fifth Circuit remanded for the district court to analyze this legal
`
`question in the first instance, and then to apply it to the facts of this case. Id. at 796.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`On remand, the district court concluded that, under Kirtaeng I, the question
`
`of whether copies were lawfully made abroad was controlled by United States copyright
`
`principles. Geophysical Servs. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Servs., No. 14-1368, 125
`
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1118, 2017 WL 5598593, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192803, at *25 (S.D.T.X.
`
`Nov. 21, 2017). Thus, it interpreted the phrase “lawfully made under this title” to “mean
`
`that a a copy is lawful if it was made … in a foreign country in a manner that would
`
`comply with Title 17 if United States copyright law applied.” Id.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Applying its view of Kirtsaeng I, the district court then granted summary
`
`judgment on a “license” defense, concluding that a company like GSI doing business in
`
`Canada’s energy sector during this time was necessarily granting a copyright license to
`
`the Canadian government, not just to use the works for its own purposes, but to make
`
`copies of those works for importation back into the United States at the direction of TGS.
`
`The Fifth Circuit affirmed on the basis of implied license. Slip op. at 5 & 7 n.5.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`The case involves important questions about “implied license” and, as the
`
`Fifth Circuit observed, one of those questions is how this type of “implied license”
`
`defense fits in the framework established by Kirtsaeng I, for which “the facts of the
`
`3
`
`
`
`instant case supply a good example of the puzzle.” 850 F.3d at 795. When a foreign
`
`regulatory regime demands that a copyrighted work be deposited with the government, are
`
`copies later made at the direction of a third party “lawfully made under Title 17” such
`
`that the copyright owner cannot exclude their importation into the United States?
`
`
`
`10.
`
`The case also presents a divide between the circuits about who bears the
`
`substantive and procedural burdens of an “implied license” defense. For express license,
`
`these burdens fall on the party seeking to avoid copyright liability. S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday,
`
`Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 1989) (“copyright licenses are assumed to prohibit
`
`any use not authorized”); see also slip op. at 7 n.5 (acknowledging this rule). For implied
`
`license, the Fifth Circuit has instead shifted a substantive burden onto copyright owners
`
`to “object” to other potentially infringing uses of their work when they deposit a physical
`
`copy. Slip op. at 6 & 7 n.5; cf. 17 U.S.C. §202 (transfer of a copy “does not of itself convey
`
`any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object”). Other courts have adhered to
`
`the view that, as with express license, proving the scope of an implied license instead
`
`turns on whether there was a “‘meeting of the minds’ between the parties to permit the
`
`particular usage at issue.” Jose Luis Pelaez, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Global Educ. Holdings,
`
`LLC, 399 F. Supp. 3d 120, 141-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (collecting authorities from the First,
`
`Fourth, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits divided on the correct legal standard to apply).
`
`
`
`11.
`
`A 30-day extension to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is necessary so
`
`that counsel can appropriately prepare the petition and appendix. The completion of this
`
`process has been further complicated by lead counsel’s other, previously engaged matters,
`
`including ongoing briefing deadlines and argument dates in Tercero v. Texas Southmost
`
`4
`
`
`
`University District (5th Cir.); Jaffe v. City of West Lake Hills (Tex. Dist. Ct.); Murphey v.
`
`Old Dollar Properties, LLC (Tex. Ct. App.); and Stross v. Centerra Homes (W.D.T.X.).
`
`
`
`12. No prejudice would arise from granting this extension, and the requested
`
`extension is unopposed.
`
`Prayer
`
`
`
`GSI respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time to file a petition for a writ of
`
`certiorari, to and including Monday January 13, 2020.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Don Cruse
`
`Don Cruse
` Counsel of Record
`LAW OFFICE OF DON CRUSE
`1108 Lavaca St. #110-436
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512) 853-9100
`don.cruse@texasappellate.com
`
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`5
`
`