close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Litigation Alert: Ninth Circuit Holds Application for Copyright Registration Sufficient for Initiation of Infringement Suit

A copyright registration is the required ticket for starting an infringement lawsuit in federal court, under 17 U.S.C. § 411. But will an application suffice to meet that requirement? The Ninth Circuit has entered the dispute among the federal circuits on this issue, joining the Fifth and Seventh Circuits and opposing the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, with its holding last week that the receipt of an application for copyright registration by the Copyright Office was sufficient. Cosmetic Ideas v. IAC, __ F.3d. __, 2010 WL 2039170 (May 25, 2010).

Practical Impact

Although plaintiffs in district courts of the Ninth Circuit have commonly acted on the assumption that an application would suffice to file suit, the Ninth Circuit has authoritatively resolved the issue – at least unless and until the Supreme Court takes up the circuit split – eliminating any concerns about the registration process delaying suit or potentially running the three-year statute of limitations.

Notwithstanding the Ninth Circuit's determination that a registration certificate is not required to sue, early registration still confers many benefits to copyright holders, including eligibility for statutory damages and attorney fees.

Facts and Background

In this case, the plaintiff, Cosmetic Ideas, had created a costume necklace in 1997 and launched sales of the necklace in 1999. Cosmetic alleged that defendant Home Shopping Network had infringed its copyright by selling a nearly identical necklace. Cosmetic applied to register the copyrights in the necklace on March 6, 2008, received confirmation that the application had reached the Office on March 12, and brought suit against the defendants on March 27. The district court for the Central District of California threw out the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because there was no registration certificate.

This decision is notable for being the first circuit court ruling on the subject since the Supreme Court's decision earlier this year in Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1237 (2010), which held that the failure to register a copyright before attempting to bring suit for its infringement was not a federal subject-matter jurisdictional defect, although it could give rise to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Reed decision invalidated the jurisdictional ground on which the Cosmetic Ideas district court had relied, leaving open the question of whether there remained a basis on which to dismiss the case. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit recognized that holding a registration certificate could have still represented a necessary element of the claim and analyzed the registration issue for the purpose of the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Basis for Decision

The Ninth Circuit considered the issue by first looking at the relevant statutory language of Section 411 of the Copyright Act: "no civil action for infringement of the 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." Finding this language ambiguous with regards to the meaning of "registration," the court also canvassed other code provisions relating to copyright registration, such as Sections 408 and 410 but found those unclear as well. Having failed to find an answer in the language, the court turned to the policy of the statute.

In assessing the policy concerns raised by the statute, the court primarily focused on lightening the burden for plaintiffs and facilitating judicial economy. First, the court noted that copyright infringement actions can always be filed regardless of whether the pre-suit registration was approved or denied. As the outcome of the registration process is ultimately immaterial, the court found that requiring the plaintiff to wait for the application to be processed created needless delay and allowed the defendant to profit from potential infringement during that period. Furthermore, the three-year statute of limitations period on copyright infringement claims would continue to run while the application was being processed by the Copyright Office, creating a risk that the claim would be time barred before the claimant could bring suit.

Additionally, the policy of encouraging registration in order to have a robust registry of copyrighted works is as well served by allowing a suit to proceed based on an application as it would be by requiring pre-trial registration. The court dismissed the argument that it was important to have the Copyright Office's opinion at the start of the trial, since the court would be able to review the Office's views during trial in any event.

Although early registration will not be required within the Ninth Circuit to initiate a copyright action, the cost of registration is so low and the advantages of timely registration – particularly, eligibility for statutory damages and for attorney fees – are so substantial that copyright holders are still well-advised to make a practice of early registration of their works.


For further information, please contact:

Sarah Herman
sherman@fenwick.com, 650.335.7543

Mitchell Zimmerman, Copyright Chair
mzimmerman@fenwick.com, 650.335.7228

©2010 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.

The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fenwick & West LLP or its clients. The content of the publication ("content") is not offered as legal or any other advice on any particular matter. The publication of any content is not intended to create and does not constitute an attorney-client relationship between you and Fenwick & West LLP. You should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the publication without seeking the appropriate legal or professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue.