No. __-____
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`WALL-STREET.COM, LLC AND JERROLD D. BURDEN,
`Respondents.
`
`__________
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Eleventh Circuit
`__________
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`__________
`
`
`JOEL B. ROTHMAN
`JEROLD I. SCHNEIDER
`SCHNEIDER ROTHMAN
` INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
` LAW GROUP, PLLC
`4651 N. Federal Highway
`Boca Raton, Florida 33431
`(561) 404-4350
`
`
`October 13, 2017
`
`AARON M. PANNER
` Counsel of Record
`GREGORY G. RAPAWY
`COLLIN R. WHITE
`KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
` FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
`1615 M Street, N.W.
`Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 326-7900
`(apanner@kellogghansen.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE
`Supreme Court of the United States
`__________
`
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`WALL-STREET.COM, LLC AND JERROLD D. BURDEN,
`Respondents.
`
`__________
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Eleventh Circuit
`__________
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`__________
`
`
`JOEL B. ROTHMAN
`JEROLD I. SCHNEIDER
`SCHNEIDER ROTHMAN
` INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
` LAW GROUP, PLLC
`4651 N. Federal Highway
`Boca Raton, Florida 33431
`(561) 404-4350
`
`
`October 13, 2017
`
`AARON M. PANNER
` Counsel of Record
`GREGORY G. RAPAWY
`COLLIN R. WHITE
`KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
` FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
`1615 M Street, N.W.
`Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 326-7900
`(apanner@kellogghansen.com)
`
`
`
`
`
`QUESTION PRESENTED
`Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act provides (with
`qualifications) that “no civil action for infringement
`of [a] copyright in any United States work shall be
`instituted until preregistration or registration of the
`copyright claim has been made in accordance with
`this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The question presented
`is:
`Whether “registration of [a] copyright claim has
`been made” within the meaning of § 411(a) when the
`copyright holder delivers the required application,
`deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the Fifth
`and Ninth Circuits have held, or only once the
`Copyright Office acts on that application, as the
`Tenth Circuit and, in the decision below, the
`Eleventh Circuit have held.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS
`Petitioner Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation
`was the plaintiff and the appellant in the proceed-
`ings below.
`Respondents Wall-Street.com, LLC and Jerrold D.
`Burden were the defendants and the appellees in the
`proceedings below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
`Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 29.6, petitioner
`Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation states that
`it is a public benefit corporation that has not issued
`any stock.
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS ......................... ii
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT ......................................... iii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................... vii
`OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1
`JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED ................. 1
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
`STATEMENT .............................................................. 3
`A. Statutory Background .................................... 3
`B. Factual Background ........................................ 6
`C. Proceedings Below .......................................... 7
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ......... 9
`I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT
`REVIEW TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT
`AMONG THE COURTS OF APPEALS
`ON A MATTER OF SIGNIFICANT
`PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE ......................... 9
`A. The Courts Of Appeals Are Divided
`On The Question Presented And
`Will Remain So Absent This Court’s
`Review ........................................................ 9
`B. The Question Presented Is Important ...... 15
`C. This Case Provides An Appropriate
`Vehicle For Resolution Of The
`Question Presented ................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`II. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT’S DECI-
`SION CONFLICTS WITH THE COPY-
`RIGHT ACT ................................................... 17
`A. A Careful Reading Of The Statute’s
`Text Establishes That The Eleventh
`Circuit’s Construction Is Incorrect .......... 18
`B. The Eleventh Circuit’s Interpreta-
`tion
`Is
`Inconsistent With The
`Copyright Act’s Scheme Of Rights
`and Remedies ........................................... 22
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 26
`APPENDIX
`Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Eleventh Circuit, Fourth Estate Pub.
`Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, et al., No.
`16-13726 (May 18, 2017) ........................................... 1a
`Order of the United States District Court for
`the Southern District of Florida Granting
`Motion To Dismiss, Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit
`Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, et al., Civil Action
`No. 16-60497-Civ-Scola (May 23, 2016) ................. 11a
`Complaint for Copyright Infringement, Fourth
`Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com,
`et al., Civil Action No. 16-60497-Civ-Scola
`(S.D. Fla. filed Mar. 11, 2016) (exhibits omitted) ... 15a
`Statutory Provisions Involved .................................. 23a
`Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.):
`17 U.S.C. § 101 (excerpt) ............................. 23a
`17 U.S.C. § 408 ............................................. 23a
`17 U.S.C. § 409 ............................................. 28a
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`17 U.S.C. § 410 ............................................. 29a
`17 U.S.C. § 411 ............................................. 30a
`17 U.S.C. § 412 ............................................. 32a
`17 U.S.C. § 501 ............................................. 33a
`17 U.S.C. § 502 ............................................. 35a
`Letter from Supreme Court Clerk regarding
`grant of extension of time for filing a petition
`for a writ of certiorari (Aug. 7, 2017) ..................... 36a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Alicea v. Machete Music, 744 F.3d 773 (1st Cir.
`2014) ..................................................................... 14
`Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d 384
`(5th Cir. 1984) .................................................10, 12
`Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474 (2010) ................... 21
`Brooks-Ngwenya v. Indianapolis Pub. Sch.,
`564 F.3d 804 (7th Cir. 2009) ............................... 14
`Caner v. Autry, 16 F. Supp. 3d 689 (W.D. Va.
`2014) ..................................................................... 14
`Chevrestt v. American Media, Inc., 204 F. Supp.
`3d 629 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ........................................ 14
`Chicago Bd. of Educ. v. Substance, Inc.,
`354 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2003) ............................... 14
`Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp.,
`606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir. 2010) .............. 10, 11, 12, 26
`FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.,
`529 U.S. 120 (2000) ............................................. 22
`Gaiman v. McFarlane, 360 F.3d 644 (7th Cir.
`2004) ..................................................................... 14
`Gattoni v. Tibi, LLC, No. 16 Civ. 7527 (RWS),
`2017 WL 2313882 (S.D.N.Y. May 25, 2017) ....... 14
`K-Beech, Inc. v. Doe, Civil Action No. 11-7083,
`2012 WL 262722 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 30, 2012) .......... 14
`La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors
`Angel Fire, 416 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2005) ....... 13,
`14, 15, 24
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103 (5th Cir.
`1991) ................................................................10, 12
`Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) ...... 18-19
`Mays & Assocs. Inc. v. Euler, 370 F. Supp. 2d
`362 (D. Md. 2005) ................................................ 14
`Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91
`(2011) ................................................................... 25
`North Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. Sasson, Civ.
`No. 2:12-3568 (WJM), 2013 WL 74237
`(D.N.J. Jan. 4, 2013) ............................................ 14
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.
`Ct. 1962 (2014)....................................................... 5
`Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records
`Inc., 394 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2004) ..................10, 12
`Prunte v. Universal Music Grp., 484 F. Supp.
`2d 32 (D.D.C. 2007) ............................................. 15
`Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d
`120 (2d Cir. 2014) ............................................ 5, 14
`Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154
`(2010) .......................................................... 5, 10, 15
`Strategy Source, Inc. v. Lee, 233 F. Supp. 2d 1
`(D.D.C. 2002) ....................................................... 15
`Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Tech.
`Inc., 307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir. 2002) ....................... 25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
`Copyright Act of 1909, ch. 320, 35 Stat. 1075 .......... 23
`Copyright Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-553,
`90 Stat. 2541 ........................................................ 20
`Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.) .................................. passim
`17 U.S.C. § 101 ...............................................10, 17
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) ....................................... 3, 22, 25
`17 U.S.C. § 106 ...................................................... 3
`17 U.S.C. § 408(a) ..................................... 1, 3, 8, 22
`17 U.S.C. § 408(b) .................................................. 3
`17 U.S.C. § 408(c)(3) ............................................ 20
`17 U.S.C. § 408(e) ................................................ 20
`17 U.S.C. § 408(f) ................................................ 21
`17 U.S.C. § 409 ...................................................... 3
`17 U.S.C. § 410(a) ............................. 3, 7, 13, 20, 21
`17 U.S.C. § 410(b) ............................... 4, 7, 8, 13, 21
`17 U.S.C. § 410(c) ....................................... 6, 24, 25
`17 U.S.C. § 410(d) ............................. 4, 8, 12, 14, 23
`17 U.S.C. § 411(a) ...................... 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12,
`13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22
`17 U.S.C. § 411(b) ................................................ 18
`17 U.S.C. § 411(c) ...........................................19, 21
`17 U.S.C. § 412 ...............................................20, 21
`17 U.S.C. § 412(2) ...........................................20, 21
`17 U.S.C. § 501(a) .................................................. 5
`17 U.S.C. § 501(b) .................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`17 U.S.C. § 502 ...................................................... 5
`17 U.S.C. § 504(a) .................................................. 5
`17 U.S.C. § 507(b) .................................................. 5
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) ..................................................... 1
`37 C.F.R. § 202.5 ......................................................... 4
`
`LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS
`H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476 (1976), reprinted in
`1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659 ........................... 20, 22, 23
`
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS
`U.S. Copyright Office:
` Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Prac-
`tices (3d ed. 2017), https://www.copyright.
`gov/comp3/docs/compendium.pdf ...................15, 16
` Fiscal 2016 Annual Report, available at
`https://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2
`016/ar2016.pdf ................................................... 4, 5
`
`
`OTHER MATERIALS
`Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae
`Supporting Vacatur and Remand, Reed
`Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154
`(2010) (No. 08-103) (U.S. filed June 8,
`2009), https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/
`files/osg/briefs/2008/01/01/2008-0103.mer.
`ami.pdf ................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`xi
`2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,
`Nimmer on Copyright (2008)............................... 11
`2 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer,
`Nimmer on Copyright (2013).............. 12, 13, 22, 25
`5 William F. Patry, Patry on Copyright (2012) ........ 13
`Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed.
`1950) ..................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation respect-
`fully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
`judgment of the Eleventh Circuit.
`OPINIONS BELOW
`The opinion of the court of appeals (App. 1a-10a) is
`reported at 856 F.3d 1338. The order of the district
`court granting respondents’ motion to dismiss (App.
`11a-14a) is not reported (but is available at 2016 WL
`9045625).
`
`JURISDICTION
`The court of appeals entered its judgment on
`May 18, 2017. On August 7, 2017, Justice Thomas
`extended the time for filing a certiorari petition
`to and including October 13, 2017. App. 36a. The
`jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1254(1).
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`Relevant provisions of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.)
`are reproduced at App. 23a-35a.
`INTRODUCTION
`The Eleventh Circuit’s decision deepens division
`among the circuits about a question that arises at the
`start of most copyright infringement cases: whether
`the copyright holder registered the work with the
`Copyright Office before suing for infringement, as
`§ 411(a) of the Copyright Act requires. The Fifth
`Circuit and the Ninth Circuit have held that, if a
`copyright holder files an application, deposits a copy
`of the work, and pays the required fee, as required by
`§ 408(a) of the Copyright Act, the copyright holder
`has “made” the required “registration” within the
`meaning of § 411(a) – whether or not the Register of
`Copyrights has acted on that application. In the
`decision below, the Eleventh Circuit rejected that
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`view, joining the Tenth Circuit in holding that a
`copyright owner may not sue infringers until after
`the Copyright Office has acted on the application and
`registered (or refused to register) the copyright claim.
`The Court should grant the petition. The question
`presented not only recurs repeatedly in copyright
`infringement cases but also frequently leads to
`wasteful litigation; worse, the interpretation adopted
`by the Eleventh Circuit can deprive the owner of
`a valid copyright of statutory remedies for infringe-
`ment. Courts, including several courts of appeals,
`and scholars have addressed the question and reached
`opposing views, and there is no prospect that further
`litigation will resolve the conflict among the circuits.
`The judgment below turns wholly on the answer to
`the question, making this case an appropriate vehicle
`for this Court to resolve it.
`Further, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision is incor-
`rect. The Copyright Act uses the phrase “registration
`. . . has been made” to refer to the action of the
`copyright holder in following the required procedures
`for registration of a copyright claim. The court of
`appeals misread the statute by focusing solely on the
`word “registration” – which by itself can refer to the
`action of the copyright holder or the Copyright Office
`– rather than reading the word in context. Moreover,
`the correct statutory reading leads to a far more
`sensible result, because the rule adopted in the
`decision under review leads to pointless delay and
`may prejudice the rights of copyright owners despite
`their compliance with the statute’s requirements.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`STATEMENT
`A. Statutory Background
`1. The Copyright Act protects “original works
`of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
`expression . . . from which they can be perceived,
`reproduced, or otherwise communicated.” 17 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a). As soon as a work is created, the copyright
`owner holds exclusive rights “to do and to authorize”
`others to do certain things with the work. Id. § 106.
`Accordingly, unlike useful inventions – which are
`protected by exclusive rights only after a patent
`application has been reviewed and approved by the
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) and a patent
`issued – original works of authorship are protected
`by virtue of their creation, not an affirmative govern-
`ment grant.
`The Copyright Act also contains provisions for
`registration of copyrights – even though “[s]uch
`registration is not a condition of copyright protection.”
`17 U.S.C. § 408(a). The copyright owner “may obtain
`registration of the copyright claim” by depositing a
`copy (or, in the case of published works, two copies)
`of the work, along with “the prescribed application
`and fee” with the Copyright Office. Id. § 408(a), (b);
`see also id. § 409 (describing required elements of the
`application). The Register of Copyrights is required
`to conduct an examination, and, if the Register
`determines that “the material deposited constitutes
`copyrightable subject matter and that the other legal
`and formal requirements of this title have been met,”
`the Register “shall register” the claim and issue a
`“certificate of registration.” Id. § 410(a). The statute
`provides that the “effective date of a copyright regis-
`tration” is not the date of issuance of the certificate
`but is instead “the day on which an application,
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`deposit, and fee, which are later determined . . . to be
`acceptable for registration, have all been received in
`the Copyright Office.” Id. § 410(d).
`If, on the other hand, the Register determines that
`“the material deposited does not constitute copy-
`rightable subject matter or that the claim is invalid
`for any other reason,” the Register “shall refuse
`registration” and notify the applicant of the reasons
`for refusal. Id. § 410(b).1
`Relatively few works are registered each year, and
`only a small number of applications are refused for
`any reason.2 In 2016, according to Copyright Office
`statistics, the Register received a little more than
`half a million claims and processed approximately
`470,000. It refused registration on 12,656 claims, or
`less than 3%.3 It is not clear what percentage of
`those rejections involved questions of copyrightable
`subject matter, but the very small number of requests
`for administrative review following a rejection – in
`Fiscal 2016, only 320 such requests involving 436 claims
`were made – may indicate that many rejections
`
`
`1 Copyright Office regulations provide for internal adminis-
`trative review of an examiner’s decision to refuse registration –
`a procedure referred to as “reconsideration.” See 37 C.F.R.
`§ 202.5. The statute does not have any specific provision for
`judicial review of a refusal decision, and a copyright owner need
`not obtain such review to sue for infringement.
`2 The number of potentially copyrightable works created
`each year is practically limitless: a child’s thank-you note to
`her aunt would likely qualify. Unless the author anticipates
`enforcing her statutory rights, there is little reason to register.
`3 See U.S. Copyright Office, Fiscal 2016 Annual Report 9,
`available at https://www.copyright.gov/reports/annual/2016/
`ar2016.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`are for “legal or procedural reasons” other than copy-
`rightability.4
`2.
`“Anyone who violates any of the exclusive
`rights of the copyright owner . . . is an infringer of
`the copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 501(a). The copyright
`owner “is entitled . . . to institute an action for . . .
`infringement.” Id. § 501(b). A federal court with
`jurisdiction over an infringement action may grant
`a temporary or permanent injunction, see id. § 502;
`an infringer is also liable for either “the copyright
`owner’s actual damages and any additional profits of
`the infringer” or “statutory damages,” id. § 504(a).
`The copyright owner must file that suit “within three
`years after the claim accrued.” Id. § 507(b); see
`generally Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134
`S. Ct. 1962 (2014).5
`Before bringing such an action, owners of a
`copyright in a United States (but not foreign) work
`must “register their works.” Reed Elsevier, Inc. v.
`Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 157 (2010). Specifically,
`§ 411(a) of the Copyright Act provides that “no civil
`action for infringement of [a] copyright in any United
`States work shall be instituted until . . . registration
`of the copyright claim has been made in accordance
`with this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 411(a). The right to pro-
`ceed with litigation does not depend on whether the
`registration is granted, though a certificate of regis-
`tration obtained before or promptly after publication
`
`4 Id.; see id. (noting that 2016 ended with “more than 316,000
`claims on hand in the system, nearly 29,000 of which required
`more information from applicants”).
`5 The courts of appeals have uniformly held that an infringe-
`ment claim accrues on the date the copyright owner knew, or
`should have known, of the infringement. See Psihoyos v. John
`Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2014) (collecting
`cases).
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`confers certain litigation advantages. In particular,
`if a plaintiff has a certificate of a registration “made
`before or within five years after first publication of
`the work,” the certificate “shall constitute prima facie
`evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the
`facts stated in the certificate”; the “evidentiary
`weight to be accorded” a certificate granted there-
`after is left to the court’s discretion. Id. § 410(c).
`In a case where registration has been refused,
`however, the applicant is nevertheless “entitled to
`institute a civil action for infringement.” Id. § 411(a).
`In such a case, the plaintiff is required to serve a
`copy of the complaint on the Copyright Office, and
`the Register may intervene “with respect to the issue
`of registrability of the copyright claim.” Id. But the
`litigation may proceed irrespective of the Register’s
`participation. See id.
`B. Factual Background
`Fourth Estate “is an independent news organiza-
`tion” whose journalists produce “high quality, timely,
`accurate and compelling journalism.” App. 15a-16a
`(Compl. ¶¶ 1-2). Fourth Estate owns the copyrights
`in those journalists’ works and licenses them to a
`cloud-based news organization called AHN Feed
`Syndicate; AHN Feed Syndicate, in turn, licenses
`them to others. App. 16a, 18a (id. ¶¶ 2, 4, 14-15).
`Fourth Estate retains the right to sue for copyright
`infringement. App. 16a (id. ¶ 2).
`This case concerns one of AHN Feed Syndicate’s
`former
`licensees, Wall-Street.com, LLC
`(“Wall-
`Street”). Wall-Street secured a license to put some of
`Fourth Estate’s works on the Internet. App. 18a (id.
`¶ 17). Under that license, if Wall-Street canceled
`its account with AHN Feed Syndicate, Wall-Street
`was to “stop display of all Feed Syndicate provided
`content and permanently take down, remove and/or
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`delete all cached, saved, archived, stored or data-
`based content or data.” Id. (id. ¶ 18). Wall-Street
`canceled its account but continued to copy and
`distribute 244 of Fourth Estate’s works. App. 18a-
`19a (id. ¶¶ 15, 19); see Compl. Ex. 1, ECF 1-2.
`In March 2016, Fourth Estate sued Wall-Street,
`seeking an injunction and damages. App. 21a-22a
`(Compl. at 7). Before it did so, it filed its application
`for registration with the Copyright Office; it did
`not wait for the Office to act on that application.
`App. 18a (id. ¶ 14). Nineteen months later – more
`than half the length of the Copyright Act’s statute of
`limitations – that application remains pending.
`C. Proceedings Below
`that
`Wall-Street moved
`to dismiss, arguing
`§ 411(a) bars Fourth Estate from suing until after
`the Register of Copyrights acts on its application.
`The district court granted the motion. App. 13a.
`Recognizing that this case “require[d] [it] to decide
`an issue that has divided the circuits,” App. 1a, the
`Eleventh Circuit held that the text of the Copyright
`Act required dismissal – aligning itself with the
`Tenth Circuit and expressly rejecting the contrary
`view of the Fifth Circuit and the Ninth Circuit.
`App. 4a-6a. The court stated that the Act “defines
`registration as a process that requires action by both
`the copyright owner and the Copyright Office.”
`App. 6a. The copyright owner files an application,
`deposits a copy, and pays the required fee; the Regis-
`ter “then examines the material” and determines
`whether it is registrable. Id. The court held that the
`use of the phrase “after examination” in § 410(a) –
`which describes the procedure that the Register must
`follow in registering a claim – “makes explicit that
`an application alone is insufficient for registration.”
`Id. Furthermore, § 410(b) authorizes the Register
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`to “refuse registration”; the court believed that, if
`“registration occurred as soon as an application was
`filed, then the Register of Copyrights would have
`no power to ‘refuse registration.’” App. 7a (quoting
`17 U.S.C. § 410(b)).
`The court rejected Fourth Estate’s contrary argu-
`ments based on other provisions of the statute. The
`court read § 408(a) – which states that a copyright
`owner “may obtain registration of the copyright claim
`by delivering” the required materials to the Register,
`17 U.S.C. § 408(a) – to say nothing about when
`registration occurs, but only about “the conditions a
`copyright owner must satisfy to obtain registration.”
`App. 7a. It likewise found it insignificant that § 410(d)
`provides that the effective date of registration is the
`date the application is complete, rather than the date
`the Copyright Office acts on an application. In the
`court’s view, that section supports its rule because
`“registration occurs only after the Register of Copy-
`rights deems an application ‘to be acceptable.’” App.
`8a (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 410(d)).
`The court also acknowledged the harsh result that
`its rule, together with the statute of limitations,
`can bring about: “an owner who files an application
`late in the statute of limitations period risks losing
`the right to enforce his copyright in an infringement
`action because of the time needed to review an appli-
`cation.” Id. “But,” in the court’s view, “this potential
`loss encourages an owner to register his copyright
`soon after he obtains the copyright and before
`infringement occurs.” Id. The court also refused to
`consider the Copyright Act’s legislative history and
`animating policy, instead finding the language that
`other courts of appeals had interpreted differently to
`be “unambiguous.” App. 9a.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`The Eleventh Circuit’s decision deepens an
`acknowledged circuit split about the meaning of the
`statutory phrase “registration . . . has been made” in
`§ 411(a). In the Fifth and Ninth Circuits, a copyright
`owner may sue to enforce exclusive rights once the
`materials required for registration have been submit-
`ted to the Copyright Office. But, in the Tenth and
`Eleventh Circuits, a copyright owner has no remedy
`for infringement until after the Copyright Office has
`acted on the application.
`That conflict, on a matter of great practical signifi-
`cance, will not be resolved without this Court’s
`review. Furthermore, the rule adopted by the court
`below and previously by the Tenth Circuit misreads
`the statutory language, by (incorrectly) construing
`the word “registration” in isolation and failing to
`construe the operative phrase, “registration . . . has
`been made” – phrasing the statute uses repeatedly to
`refer to the actions of the copyright holder. The
`court’s decision in this case invites wasteful litigation
`and jeopardizes copyright owners’ ability to enforce
`their statutory rights. This case provides an ideal
`opportunity to resolve the issue correctly once and
`for all.
`I. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT REVIEW
`TO RESOLVE A CONFLICT AMONG THE
`COURTS OF APPEALS ON A MATTER OF
`SIGNIFICANT PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE
`A. The Courts Of Appeals Are Divided On
`The Question Presented And Will Remain
`So Absent This Court’s Review
`Four courts of appeals have resolved the question
`presented, dividing evenly on the issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`1. The Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit
`have held that “receipt by the Copyright Office of
`a complete application satisfies the registration
`requirement of § 411(a).” Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v.
`IAC/Interactivecorp., 606 F.3d 612, 621 (9th Cir.
`2010); see Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money
`Records Inc., 394 F.3d 357, 365 (5th Cir. 2004),
`abrogated in part on other grounds by Reed Elsevier,
`Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 160 n.2 (2010);
`Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1108 (5th Cir.
`1991); Apple Barrel Prods., Inc. v. Beard, 730 F.2d
`384, 386-87 (5th Cir. 1984).
`In Cosmetic Ideas, after noting that the
`a.
`circuits were already divided on the issue, the Ninth
`Circuit determined that § 411(a) itself “gives no
`guidance in interpreting the meaning of ‘registration,’”
`which is “unhelpfully” defined elsewhere in the stat-
`ute as “‘a registration of a claim in the original or the
`renewed and extended term of copyright.’” 606 F.3d
`at 616 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 101). The court found the
`“language of the statute as a whole” likewise to be
`ambiguous. Id. at 616-17.
`Because the court found the statutory language to
`be ambiguous, it sought to “discern its meaning by
`looking to ‘the broader context of the statute as a
`whole’ and the purpose of the statute.” Id. at 618.
`The court concluded that allowing a copyright holder
`to sue once it had submitted its complete application
`“better fulfills” the purpose of the statute. Id. at 619.
`The court noted that this approach “avoids unneces-
`sary delay . . . , which could permit an infringing
`party to continue to profit from its wrongful acts.”
`Id. The court emphasized that § 411(a) “allows a
`party, after applying for registration, to litigate the
`claim whether the Copyright Office accepts or rejects
`the registration.” Id. Requiring a copyright holder to
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`wait until the Copyright Office has acted “‘create[s]
`a period of “legal limbo” in which suit is barred.’”
`Id. at 620 (quoting 2 Melville B. Nimmer & David
`Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 7.16[B][1][a][i] (2008)).
`At the same time, allowing a copyright owner to sue
`while the application is pending does not “impair[]
`the central goal of copyright registration” because the
`copyright holder is nevertheless obligated “to submit
`the information necessary to add the copyright to the
`federal registry.” Id.
`The court also found that the “requirement of
`affirmative approval or rejection before suit . . .
`amounts to little more than just the type of needless
`formality Congress generally worked to eliminate in
`the 1976 Act.” Id. And, “in addition to being general
`inefficient, in the worst-case scenario the registration
`approach could cause a party to lose its ability to
`sue,” given the three-year statute of limitations. Id.
`“This result does not square well with § 410(d)’s
`mandate that an application’s effective registration
`date should be the day that a completed application
`is received.” Id.
`The court also rejected the argument that “defer-
`ence to the Register” required a different result. Id.
`at 621. First, as a practical matter, because of the
`pace of litigation, the Copyright Office will typically
`have acted before a case is decided, and the Copy-
`right Office, if it rejects an application, will still have
`an opportunity to intervene in the pending litigation.
`See id. Moreover, “the Register’s decision of whether
`or not to grant a registration certificate is largely
`perfunctory, and is ultimately reviewable by the
`courts.” Id. Thus, review by the Copyright Office
`and underlying litigation “can occur simultaneously
`with little or no prejudice to any involved parties.”
`Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`b. The result in Cosmetic Ideas accords with the
`result earlier reached and repeatedly reaffirmed by
`the Fifth Circuit, which, as the first court of appeals
`to address the issue, held that, “to bring suit for
`copyright infringement, it is not necessary to prove
`possession of a registration certificate. One need
`only prove payment of the required fee, deposit of the
`work in question, and receipt by the Copyright Office
`of a registration application.” Apple Barrel, 730 F.2d
`at 386-87; see also Lakedreams, 932 F.2d at 1108
`(5th Cir. 1991); accord Positive Black Talk, 394 F.3d
`at 365.
`To support that conclusion, the Fifth Circuit relied
`on Professor Nimm
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
