United States v. Liu, No. 10-10613 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his sentence and convictions for criminal copyright infringement and trafficking in counterfeit labels. The court held that the term "willfully" required the government to prove that a defendant knew he was acting illegally rather than simply that he knew he was making copies. Similarly, to "knowingly" traffic in counterfeit labels required knowledge that the labels were counterfeit. Accordingly, the court vacated defendant's conviction and remanded because the district court improperly instructed the jury on these issues. The court also concluded that the district court should dismiss the second count against defendant on remand because his counsel failed to raise an obvious statute-of-limitations defense.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated convictions and sentences on three counts of criminal copyright infringement and one count of trafficking in counterfeit labels in a case in which the defendant’s company commercially replicated CDs and DVDs for various clients on a scale that subjects the defendant to substantial criminal liability if a client – and, by extension, the defendant – lacked permission from the copyright holder to make the copies. The panel held that the term “willfully” in 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) requires the government to prove that a defendant knew he was acting illegally rather than simply that he knew he was making copies, and that to “knowingly” traffic in counterfeit labels under 18 U.S.C. § 2318(a)(1) requires knowledge that the labels were counterfeit. Because the district court improperly instructed the jury otherwise and the errors were not harmless, the panel vacated the convictions and remanded. The panel concluded that the district court should dismiss one of the copyright infringement counts on remand because counsel was ineffective by failing to raise an obvious statute- of-limitations defense.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.