The Supreme Court's ruling, which removes the three-year limit on money damages for timely filed copyright infringement claims, is expected to have a profound impact. This decision is likely to trigger a surge in litigation over older infringements, a development that could significantly alter the copyright landscape. The ruling also raises the question of whether the discovery rule applies to copyright infringement claims, a matter that could further complicate the legal terrain.
The Copyright Act says a plaintiff must file suit within three years after the claim accrued. In this case, the Court did not rule on whether the three years is measured from the publication or the discovery of the publication. It just assumed the discovery rule applied.
The Court held that the Copyright Act’s three-year time-to-sue prescription establishes no separate three-year period for recovering damages. Because the claims were filed in a timely manner under the discovery rule, the plaintiff may obtain damages for all infringing acts, including acts that occurred more than three years prior to filing the suit.
The decision allows plaintiffs to recover damages for infringement that occurred many years or even decades ago.
If, in a future decision, the Court holds that the discovery rule does not apply to copyright infringement claims, then the Copyright Act’s three-year time-to-sue prescription will effectively become a three-year limitation on damages. This potential shift in the legal landscape is underscored by a pending petition asking the Court to consider whether the discovery rule applies to the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations in civil claims. This petition could have far-reaching implications for copyright litigation.
Comments