Injury Rule Governs the Accrual of Copyright Infringement Claims: SDNY | Practical Law

Injury Rule Governs the Accrual of Copyright Infringement Claims: SDNY | Practical Law

In Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the injury rule applies to determine the accrual of an infringement claim under the Copyright Act of 1976.

Injury Rule Governs the Accrual of Copyright Infringement Claims: SDNY

Practical Law Legal Update 3-518-7562 (Approx. 4 pages)

Injury Rule Governs the Accrual of Copyright Infringement Claims: SDNY

by PLC Intellectual Property & Technology
Published on 02 Apr 2012USA (National/Federal)
In Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the injury rule applies to determine the accrual of an infringement claim under the Copyright Act of 1976.

Key Litigated Issues

In Urbont v. Sony Music Entertainment, the key issue was whether the injury rule or the discovery rule should apply to determine when an infringement claim accrues under the Copyright Act of 1976. Under the injury rule, a claim accrues at each act of infringement, regardless of the copyright holder's knowledge of the infringement. Under the discovery rule, which is applied by most federal courts in other districts, a claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury forming the claim's basis. Determining when a claim accrues is necessary for assessing whether the claim is timely under the Act. Under the limitations provision of the Act, an infringement claim must be commenced within three years of the accrual of the claim.

Background

In this case, Jack Urbont sued Dennis Coles, a former member of the group the Wu-Tang Clan, Sony Music Entertainment and Razor Sharp Records, LLC, alleging infringement of his copyrighted musical composition and sound recording of the "Iron Man Theme." Urbont alleged that Coles's 2000 album copied the Iron Man Theme musical composition and sound recording.
On June 30, 2011, Urbont filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting, among other claims, infringement of the Iron Man Theme musical composition under the Copyright Act of 1976. Under the limitations provision of the Act, a copyright infringement action must be commenced within three years after the claim accrued. In response, the defendants, asserting that the injury rule determines the accrual of a claim, moved to dismiss the infringement claims under the Copyright Act that arose from alleged acts of infringement before May 21, 2007, the date three years before the date (May 21, 2010) that the parties entered into a tolling agreement that stopped the running of the statue of limitations. Urbont argued in response that the discovery rule should apply. Urbont implied that he first learned of the alleged infringement in late 2009 or early 2010.
Urbont also asserted common law claims for infringement of the Iron Man Theme sound recording. The sound recording claims were asserted under common law because the Copyright Act does not currently apply to sound recordings created before February 15, 1972.

Outcome

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Urbont's infringement claims under the Copyright Act as time-barred for acts of infringement occurring before May 21, 2007 (three years before the effective date of the tolling agreement), holding that the injury rule applied to determine the date the claims accrued.
Applying a three-year statute of limitations for injury to property under New York law, the court found that Urbont's common law claims were time-barred to the extent that they related to acts occurring more than three years before the date of the tolling agreement.
In reaching its decision on the federal claims, the court, in a detailed memorandum and order by US District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, considered:
  • Southern District of New York precedent.
  • Second Circuit decisions on accrual of copyright ownership claims.
  • The text and structure of the Copyright Act.
  • Supreme Court jurisprudence.
  • The potential for equitable tolling.

Southern District of New York Precedent

The court began its analysis by noting that the majority of previous Southern District of New York decisions had applied the injury rule.

Second Circuit Decisions on Accrual of Ownership Claims

The court acknowledged Second Circuit decisions that have applied the discovery rule to copyright ownership claims. However, the court noted that the Second Circuit has distinguished copyright infringement claims from ownership claims, because ownership claims accrue only once but each act of infringement triggers a separate claim for relief and a separate accrual date.

Text and Structure of the Copyright Act

Urbont, in asserting that the discovery rule should apply, argued that different language was used in the Copyright Act's criminal ("after the cause of action arose") and civil ("after the claim accrued") limitations provisions show that the respective provisions have different meanings and that because the criminal provision embodies an injury rule the civil provision must embody a discovery rule. The court rejected this argument, noting that:
  • The dictionary definition of accrue suggests that the limitations period begins to run when the plaintiff acquires the right to use, regardless of knowledge.
  • The legislative history of the Copyright Act's limitations provision undercuts that argument that Congress intended the difference in terminology of the civil and criminal limitations provisions to have substantive implications.

US Supreme Court Jurisprudence

The court noted that while the US Supreme Court has not ruled on this particular issue in the copyright context, it has cast disfavor on any presumption favoring the discovery rule as a general matter. The court contrasted Supreme Court decisions where the discovery rule was applied because the acts were inherently self-concealing, for example in cases of latent disease and medical malpractice, with acts of copyright infringement that are open and notorious in nature.

Potential for Equitable Tolling

The court also noted that the potential for equitable tolling of infringement claims, particularly for fraudulent concealment, also weighs in favor of application of the injury rule. The court reasoned that if the discovery rule applied, equitable tolling for fraudulent concealment would be redundant. If an infringement claim accrued only when the copyright holder knew of the infringement it would not matter whether the holder's lack of knowledge was from ignorance or concealment.

Practical Implications

This case's detailed analysis and outcome is significant for litigants engaged in the pursuit or defense of copyright infringement claims in the Southern District of New York, as there is now greater certainty that the injury rule applies to determine when an infringement claim accrues for determining the start of the limitations period under the Copyright Act.