[简答题]X.(IntellectualProperties) WenowaddressthedegreetowhichtheSupremeCourt’sdecisioninQualityKinginvalidatesthiscircuit’sconstructionof§109(a).ThispanelmayoverruleBMGMusic,DrugEmporium,andDenbicareifQualityKing―undercut[s]thetheoryorreasoningunderlyingthepriorcircuitprecedentinsuchawaythatthecasesareclearlyirreconcilable.‖ ItisclearthatQualityKingdidnotdirectlyoverruleBMGMusic,DrugEmporium,andDenbicare.QualityKinginvolved―roundtrip‖importation:aproductwithaU.S.-copyrightedlabelwasmanufacturedinsidetheUnitedStates,exportedtoanauthorizedforeigndistributor,soldtounidentifiedthirdpartiesoverseas,shippedbackintotheUnitedStateswithoutthecopyrightowner’spermission,andthensoldinCaliforniabyunauthorizedretailers.TheCourtheldthat§109(a)canprovideadefensetoanactionunder§602(a)inthiscontext.However,becausethefactsinvolvedonlydomesticallymanufacturedcopies,theCourtdidnotaddresstheeffectof§109(a)onclaimsinvolvingunauthorizedimportationofcopiesmadeabroad.(Ginsburg,J.,concurring)(―Wedonottoday
A. A．the court‘s general rule that § 109(a) is limited to copies ―legally made ... in the United States
B．the Supreme Court‘s reasoning in Quality King can not reconcile with the court‘s decision regarding § 109(a).
C．§ 109(a) is limited to copies ―legally made ... in the United States.
D．the Supreme Court discussed the scope of § 109(a) or defined what ―lawfully made under this title‖ meant.