Intellectual Property Law

First Circuit: Discovery rule not triggered in copyright case by parties' acrimonious split

By McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.

In a recent decision, the First Circuit reversed a district court's decision dismissing a copyright infringement claim on statute of limitation grounds.   The main issue was whether the statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims barred an architectural firm's action against a former client. 

The court determined that no triggering event had occurred which would put the plaintiff on inquiry notice of the claimed infringement outside the three-year statute of limitations.  The court said a frayed relationship between the client and the firm did not give rise "to a reasonable suspicion that skullduggery was afoot."  Because the plaintiff was not on inquiry notice (and did not have actual notice outside the limitations period), the district court's dismissal of the copyright infringement claim was reversed.

The court then affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissing the defendant's counterclaims.  These counterclaims were all based on the defendant having sole ownership of the plans.  The court found no plausible way for the defendant to claim sole ownership, either under the work-for-hire doctrine or otherwise.

Interesting tidbits:  The opinion was written by Senior Circuit Judge Bruce Selya, well-known for his extensive vocabulary.  This opinion did not disappoint, using words such as "quondam," "tamisage" (a word so uncommon no online definition could be located, although Judge Selya has used it before), and "asseverate."  Also, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor sat on the panel.

More on Warren Freedenfeld Assocs., Inc v. McTigue after the jump.

[More]

Full post as published by FileWrapper on July 07, 2008 (boomark / email).