National Ass'n of Boards of Pharmacy v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 633 F.3d 1297

NABP owns and protects the NAPLEX/MPJE copyrights and monitors uses of NABP materials.
UGA and Flynn Warren previously settled in 1995 to cease copying NABP materials and allow monitoring; NABP could monitor new course materials.
In 2007, NABP learned Warren used NABP questions for a review course and NABP obtained samples from NABP staff to verify infringements.
NABP filed August 3, 2007 suit seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Copyright Act, plus state-law claims (trade secrets, contract).
The district court granted TRO; later dismissed damages as barred by Eleventh Amendment and denied injunctive relief on mootness; amended complaint added Counts I–III and claims against Board of Regents, Members, and University Officials; NABP appealed.
On appeal, NABP argued ongoing infringement to support Ex parte Young and that CRCA abrogates state immunity; mootness and finality issues were central to appellate review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Premature appeal and final judgment timing	NABP's June 12 notice of appeal should be treated as appeal of the Rule 54(b) judgment.	District court order dismissing counts left unsettled claims; timing jurisdiction unclear.	Premature notice cured by Rule 54(b) certification; June 12 notice valid for appeal of July 14 Rule 54(b) judgment.
Ex parte Young injunctive relief and mootness	NABP alleged ongoing infringement by Regents/Members; sought prospective relief.	Infringing conduct ceased; representations showed no continuing violation; mootness applies.	Voluntary cessation did not render the injunctive claim moot; ongoing violation not unambiguously terminated.
CRCA damages and sovereign immunity under Article I	CRCA abrogates state immunity via Article I Copyright Clause; allows damages.	Seminole Tribe bars abrogation under Article I; Katz limited to Bankruptcy Clause; §5 not addressed.	Congress cannot abrogate under the Copyright Clause; CRCA damages not available against States.
CRCA damages and §5 Fourteenth Amendment	CRCA damages valid under §5 due process violations; due process alleged in amended complaint.	No actual due process violation; post-deprivation remedies adequate; not prophylactic under §5.	Amended complaint failed to allege actual due process violation; CRCA damages not cognizable under §5.

Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (Congress cannot abrogate state sovereign immunity under Article I powers alone)
Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999) (Copyright Clause cannot support state immunity abrogation; Bankruptcy Clause distinction clarified)
United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (Georgia cannot be used to expand Article I abrogation beyond constitutional limits)
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (Congruence and proportionality test for prophylactic §5 regulations)
Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006) (Bankruptcy Clause authority; Katz distinguished from Copyright Clause limitations)