LANDSLIDE December 2024/January 2025
Published in Landslide, Volume 17, Number 2, 2024. © 2024 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion
thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the
American Bar Association.
57
Copyrights
Copyright Owner Entitled to Damages for
Timely Infringement Claim Regardless of When
Infringement Occurred
33 Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 144 S. Ct. 1135,
2024 U.S.P.Q.2d 864 (2024). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
a copyright owner is entitled to monetary relief for any timely
infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. The
case was initiated by music producer Sherman Nealy, who brought
a copyright infringement claim against Warner Chappell Music for
alleged unauthorized uses of certain musical works. Nealy relied
on the “discovery rule” applied by the Eleventh Circuit, which
considers a copyright claim as timely led if brought within three
years of when the plaintiff discovered the infringement. Warner
Chappell did not dispute Nealy’s reliance on the discovery rule
and argued that Nealy was prevented from recovering monetary
damages for infringing acts that occurred more than three years
prior to the ling of the lawsuit. The district court agreed with
Warner Chappell and found that monetary relief is limited to
the three years prior to ling the action. The Eleventh Circuit
reversed, nding that a plaintiff with a timely led claim may
recover damages for infringement occurring more than three years
before bringing the action.
The Supreme Court afrmed the Eleventh Circuit’s decision.
The Supreme Court did not address whether Nealy’s claim was
timely led and declined to answer the question of whether the
discovery rule should govern with respect to when a copyright
claim accrues. Instead, the Supreme Court limited its review to
whether a plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages incurred more
than three years prior to the lawsuit. The Supreme Court conrmed
that a plaintiff is entitled to such damages and held that a copyright
plaintiff may obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement
claim, regardless of when the infringement occurred.
Former Lead Vocalist Entitled to Featured Artist
Royalties
Ithier v. Aponte-Cruz, 105 F.4th 1, 2024 U.S.P.Q.2d 1122 (1st Cir.
2024). On appeal, the First Circuit ruled that the lead vocalist of
the Puerto Rican band El Gran Combo, Carlos Aponte-Cruz, is a
recording artist featured on the band’s recordings, as identied by
the Digital Performance Rights in Sound Recording Act of 1995,
and is entitled to 45% of the statutory royalties from the digital
transmissions of over 200 songs.
The issue on appeal was the meaning of “recording artist or
artists featured on a sound recording” and whether that meant
the band El Gran Combo as a distinct and cohesive entity, or
if “recording artist” means the individuals who make up the
14-member band. The district court held that El Gran Combo is
the group most prominently featured on the sound recordings,
and because Rafael Ithier is the sole owner of the company EGC
Corp., which was created to direct Ithier’s ownership of the band,
Ithier was granted the exclusive right to collect the “recording
artist” royalties.
The First Circuit reversed the holding, nding that the plain
language of 17 U.S.C. § 114(g), which refers to a “featured
recording artist who performs on a sound recording,” means
the natural persons who perform on a sound recording, not an
articial entity like a corporation or even an unincorporated band,
even when the individuals perform collectively. The First Circuit
noted that this remains true even if the artist or artists are not
specically named on the album cover or named in the release of
the recording.
In addition to the plain language of the statute, the First Circuit
found support for its interpretation in the implementation of the
law for over two decades, industry norms, and legislative history
and amendments of the Digital Performance Rights in Sound
Recording Act, which sought to protect and fairly compensate the
creators of musical recordings “whether they compose the score,
write the lyrics, sing the songs, or produce the recordings.”
John C. Gatz
DECISIONS IN BRIEF
Patents
Appellate Jurisdiction
Copan Italia Spa v. Puritan Medical Products Co., 101 F.4th
847, 2024 U.S.P.Q.2d 886 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Federal Circuit
dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Puritan
led an appeal after the district court denied its partial motion to
dismiss patent infringement claims brought by Copan. Puritan
led the partial motion to dismiss, arguing that it was immune
from Copan’s patent infringement claims under the Pandemic
Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. The district
court denied the motion to dismiss because the limited record did
not show that the PREP Act afrmative defense had been proven.
Thus, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court’s denial
of Puritan’s motion to dismiss did not conclusively determine any
issue and, thus, did not fall within the collateral order doctrine
necessary for appellate jurisdiction.
Attorney Fees
33 Dragon Intellectual Property LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C.,
101 F.4th 1366, 2024 U.S.P.Q.2d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2024). The Federal
Circuit afrmed the district court’s partial award of attorney fees
