Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

E666876

Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. is a U.S. Supreme Court case that defined when litigation can be considered a "sham" unprotected by the First Amendment under antitrust law.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (40)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case ⓘ
antitrust case ⓘ
areaOfLaw First Amendment law ⓘ
antitrust law ⓘ
civil procedure ⓘ
arguedDate 1992-10-06 ⓘ
citation 508 U.S. 49 ⓘ
citationStyle Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) ⓘ
constitutionalProvision First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country United States ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate 1993-04-20 ⓘ
decisionType unanimous decision ⓘ
docketNumber 91-1043 ⓘ
holding Objectively reasonable litigation cannot be deemed a sham and is immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. ⓘ
To be a sham, litigation must be objectively baseless and subjectively intended to interfere directly with a competitor’s business relationships through the use of governmental process. ⓘ
impact clarified scope of sham litigation exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity ⓘ
limited antitrust liability for parties bringing objectively reasonable lawsuits ⓘ
jurisdiction federal question jurisdiction ⓘ
keyPhrase Noerr-Pennington doctrine ⓘ
objectively baseless litigation ⓘ
sham exception ⓘ
legalIssue Noerr-Pennington doctrine ⓘ
antitrust immunity for petitioning activity ⓘ
sham litigation exception ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy Justice Clarence Thomas ⓘ
linked to: Clarence Thomas
page 49 ⓘ
petitioner Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. ⓘ
proceduralPosture review of Ninth Circuit decision ⓘ
relatedArea competition between video rental business and motion picture copyright holders ⓘ
relatedDoctrine Noerr-Pennington immunity ⓘ
reporter United States Reports ⓘ
respondent Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. ⓘ
linked to: Columbia Pictures
shamTestElement objective baselessness of the lawsuit ⓘ
subjective intent to use the process to interfere with a competitor ⓘ
shortName PREI v. Columbia Pictures ⓘ
subjectMatter copyright infringement litigation used as basis for antitrust counterclaim ⓘ
testEstablished two-part sham litigation test ⓘ
volume 508 ⓘ
yearDecided 1993 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB → relatedCase → Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. ⓘ
Noerr-Pennington doctrine → clarifiedInCase → Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. ⓘ
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. → shortName → PREI v. Columbia Pictures ⓘ
linked to: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.
Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. → citationStyle → Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) ⓘ
linked to: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.