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 (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. canonical | 2 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7476485 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Context triple: [BE&K Construction Co. v. NLRB, relatedCase, Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.]
-
A.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
B.
United States v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc.
United States v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. was a landmark U.S. antitrust Supreme Court case addressing monopolistic practices in the movie theater industry.
-
C.
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits by holding that secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable under Section 10(b) unless their own conduct is directly relied upon by investors.
-
D.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. is a landmark 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that Congress may prohibit all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property under 42 U.S.C. § 1982.
-
E.
Eisner v. Macomber
Eisner v. Macomber is a 1920 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a pro rata stock dividend was not taxable income under the Sixteenth Amendment, shaping early federal income tax doctrine.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Target entity description: 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.
-
A.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
B.
United States v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc.
United States v. Schine Chain Theatres, Inc. was a landmark U.S. antitrust Supreme Court case addressing monopolistic practices in the movie theater industry.
-
C.
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta is a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited the scope of private securities fraud lawsuits by holding that secondary actors in a deceptive scheme are not liable under Section 10(b) unless their own conduct is directly relied upon by investors.
-
D.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. is a landmark 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that Congress may prohibit all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property under 42 U.S.C. § 1982.
-
E.
Eisner v. Macomber
Eisner v. Macomber is a 1920 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a pro rata stock dividend was not taxable income under the Sixteenth Amendment, shaping early federal income tax doctrine.
- F. None of above. chosen
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) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision | First Amendment to the United States Constitution NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
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
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
objectively baseless litigation ⓘ sham exception ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Noerr-Pennington doctrine
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
antitrust immunity for petitioning activity ⓘ sham litigation exception ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Justice Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| page | 49 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | review of Ninth Circuit decision ⓘ |
| relatedArea | competition between video rental business and motion picture copyright holders ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine | Noerr-Pennington immunity NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| shamTestElement |
objective baselessness of the lawsuit
ⓘ
subjective intent to use the process to interfere with a competitor ⓘ |
| shortName | PREI v. Columbia Pictures NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| 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
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. Description of subject: 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.
Referenced by (2)
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.
ⓘ