Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle authored four novels and fifty-six short stories featuring Holmes and Watson (sometimes referred to as "the Canon"), published between 1887 and 1927.

The Estate wrote, "[I]f you proceed instead to bring out [the book] unlicensed, do not expect to see it offered for sale by Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and similar retailers.

"[9] Klinger believed that he did not need to obtain and pay for a license from the Estate, because the characters of Holmes and Watson had already entered the public domain and hence could be freely used.

The district court allowed the plaintiff to file for a summary motion due to the absence of defendant in the initial proceedings.

He observed that in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.,[10] the Court had held that a threat of litigation was not essential for a case or controversy under Article III.

Rather, the Court explained, the test was "whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment."

That requirement, the appeal court held, was fulfilled: Had Klinger had no idea how the Doyle estate would react to the publication of In the Company of Sherlock Holmes, he could not have sought a declaratory judgment, because he would not have been able to demonstrate that there was an actual dispute.

[16]Justice Richard Posner noted, "Only if Klinger obtains the declaration will he be able to publish his book without having to yield to what he considers extortion.

"[16] The Court held that, had Klinger published the sequel without seeking the declaratory order, he would have faced a copyright infringement suit from the Estate.

Further, it was held that the action brought by the plaintiff was purely a matter of law, i.e., whether he can use the character of Holmes and Watson, and elements in public domain, and accordingly the Judge in the Federal Court was right to assert jurisdiction over the case.

[18] Finally, the Court held that, in the initial works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the characters of Holmes and Watson were sufficiently delineated[19] as to become eligible and subject to copyright protection.

"[20] The Court, rejecting the appeal of the defendants, argued that the Estate essentially asked for 135 years of copyright protection over the characters of Holmes and Watson, which was contradictory to the goals of the statute and hence not permissible under the law.

[21] The Estate then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which was also denied, leaving the Seventh Circuit's opinion as the final judgment in the case.