IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the latest in intellectual property law
Copyrights
Subscribe to Copyrights's Posts

Headnote to self: Third Circuit rejects fair use defense for AI training

by | Oct 15, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Thomson Reuters, finding that Westlaw’s editorial headnotes were copyrightable and that use of those headnotes to train an artificial intelligence (AI) legal-research platform did not constitute fair use. Characterizing the dispute as “no more than an ordinary copyright case,” the Court emphasized that its decision did not resolve broader questions concerning generative AI training. Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., Case No. 25-2153 (3d Cir. Sept. 29, 2026) (Restrepo, Montgomery-Reeves, Bove, JJ.)

Thomson Reuters operates Westlaw, a legal-research platform that provides judicial opinions accompanied by editor-written headnotes summarizing key points of law. Although judicial opinions are not copyrightable, Thomson Reuters claimed copyright protection in the headnotes, which its editors prepare under detailed guidelines requiring them to identify and summarize significant legal principles in concise standalone statements.

ROSS developed a non-generative-AI legal-research platform designed to respond to users’ legal questions by identifying relevant passages from about 10 million judicial opinions. To train its platform, ROSS retained LegalEase Solutions to prepare about 25,000 memoranda, each containing a legal question and four to six responsive judicial opinions. LegalEase used thousands of Westlaw headnotes to formulate the questions. ROSS intended to compete directly with Westlaw and marketed its platform at comparable prices.

Thomson Reuters sued ROSS for copyright infringement. The district court granted partial summary judgment, finding that 2,243 headnotes identified by Thomson Reuters’ expert were sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection and that ROSS’s use of those headnotes was not fair use. The district court certified the originality and fair use issues for interlocutory appeal.

The Third Circuit first addressed copyrightability. Applying the “extremely low” originality threshold established in the Supreme Court’s 1991 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. decision, the Third Circuit concluded that the headnotes contained sufficient creativity because editors exercised judgment in selecting which legal principles to summarize and how to express them. The Third Circuit rejected ROSS’s argument that copyright protection would effectively grant Thomson Reuters a monopoly over the law, explaining that judicial opinions remained freely available. The Court also rejected ROSS’s merger doctrine argument, finding that the underlying legal principles could be expressed in many ways.

Turning to fair use, the Third Circuit considered the four statutory factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107:

  • As to the purpose and character of the use, the Court found ROSS’s use commercial and, at most, minimally transformative because both platforms served the same purpose, which was helping users locate relevant legal materials. Although ROSS used the headnotes to train its AI platform rather than displaying them, it could have relied on freely available judicial opinions instead. This factor weighed against fair use.
  • The nature of the copyrighted work weighed slightly in ROSS’s favor because the headnotes primarily conveyed factual information and legal principles. The Court noted, however, that this factor generally carries limited weight.
  • The amount and substantiality of the portion used weighed against fair use [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

DMCA requirements for CMI removal not always met in AI code writing

by | Oct 1, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims that alleged artificial intelligence (AI) tools removed or altered copyright management information (CMI) from the programmers’ protected works. Doe et al. v. GitHub, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-7700 (9th Cir. Sept. 16, 2026) (Thomas, Miller, Blumenfeld, JJ.)

GitHub operates a platform where developers can store, manage, and share software code. GitHub Copilot and OpenAI Codex are generative AI tools trained on millions of software projects available on GitHub. Copilot uses statistical patterns learned from its training data to generate code in response to user prompts. The plaintiffs are programmers who published copyrighted code in public GitHub repositories under open-source licenses that generally required attribution, including the author’s name and copyright notice.

The plaintiffs sued GitHub, Microsoft, and OpenAI, alleging that Copilot sometimes reproduced their code without the attribution, copyright notices, or license terms accompanying the code in the GitHub repositories. The plaintiffs asserted that these omissions violated § 1202(b) of the DMCA.

The district court dismissed the DMCA claim, reasoning that § 1202(b) required the allegedly infringing work to be identical to the original work from which the CMI had been removed. Because the plaintiffs alleged that Copilot generated near-identical, modified, or functionally equivalent versions of their code, the district court concluded that they had failed to state a claim. It certified for interlocutory appeal the question of whether § 1202(b) imposes an identicality requirement.

Removal or alteration of CMI

Section 1202(b) prohibits intentionally removing or altering CMI, and distributing works or copies of works knowing that CMI has been removed or altered without authority.

The plaintiffs argued that § 1202(b) does not require the defendant’s output to be literally identical to the copyrighted work. They contended that a literal-identicality rule would allow a defendant to evade the DMCA simply by making a trivial change to a copied work after removing its CMI – for example, changing one word on a page. The defendants, while conceding that literal identicality was not required, argued that § 1202(b) requires CMI to have been removed or altered from a copy of the plaintiff’s existing work. If Copilot instead generates a new or derivative work that never contained the plaintiff’s CMI, there is nothing from which CMI was “removed” or “altered.”

The Ninth Circuit rejected a literal identicality requirement and characterized “identicality” as a “misnomer.” The relevant inquiry is not whether the works are identical, but whether CMI was actually removed or altered from a copy of an existing protected work. Identicality may be evidence of removal where two works are otherwise identical, but the allegedly infringing version omits CMI contained in the original. Under those circumstances, a factfinder may reasonably infer that the CMI was removed. But literal identity is not required. Minor cosmetic changes will not necessarily defeat a claim where a defendant substantially or entirely reproduces an existing work and removes its CMI.

Applying that standard, the Ninth Circuit concluded that [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Copyright Royalty Board royalty rate allocations must be explained

by | Oct 1, 2026 |

Addressing royalties under the US Copyright Act’s compulsory licensing scheme, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the Copyright Royalty Board’s royalty allocation for 2014 through 2017 and remanded for the Board to further explain how the royalty rates were calculated and allocated. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball v. Librarian of Congress, Case Nos. 24-1259; -1260 (DC Cir. Sept. 22, 2026) (Srinivasan, Childs, Rogers, JJ.) (Rogers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

The compulsory licensing scheme at issue relates to cable systems that pay statutorily prescribed royalties in exchange for permission to distantly retransmit television broadcast programming. The cable systems calculate and deposit those royalties with the Register of Copyrights. If copyright claimants cannot agree on how to distribute the resulting royalty pool, the Board conducts proceedings to determine the appropriate allocation.

In phase one of the royalty calculation proceedings, the copyright claimants group themselves into categories based on the programming they own, and the Board allocates the overall royalty pot among those categories based on their relative marketplace value. In this case, the Board relied on two principal valuation methodologies, the Bortz Survey and a regression analysis, to determine the relative marketplace value of the programming categories and allocate the royalty pool among them. The Board’s phase one allocation was at issue on appeal. The Joint Sports Claimants (JSC), which included the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, along with Public Television (PTV), which included the Public Broadcasting Service, separately challenged the Board’s allocation of the royalty pool as arbitrary and capricious.

PTV argued that the Board’s reliance on an expert’s sensitivity test was arbitrary and capricious because:

  • It departed from the Board’s precedent without explanation.
  • It contradicted the evidence and nearly every expert’s testimony that minimum-fee signals retain value.
  • It was applied inconsistently across the copyright claimants.

In response to the first point, the DC Circuit found that the Board did not depart from precedent but instead properly changed its valuation method based on the changed circumstances in the compulsory licensing marketplace that occurred during the 2014 to 2017 time period. Regarding the second point, the Court found that the Board reasonably excluded minimum-fee cable systems because their programming preferences could not be meaningfully captured by a regression designed to measure incremental willingness to pay. As to the third point, the Court found that the Board correctly applied adjustments to certain programming groups to correct distortions in the regression data.

PTV further argued that the sensitivity test’s exclusion of cable systems that were required to carry certain programming was arbitrary and disproportionately affected PTV. The DC Circuit disagreed, explaining that the Copyright Act does not establish the marketplace value of must-carry programming, the evidence did not establish the value PTV attributed to such programming, and the Board reasonably relied on an expert’s estimate of the number of must-carry signals.

JSC argued that the Board’s reliance on an expert’s regression analysis and a Bortz Survey was arbitrary and capricious [...]

Continue Reading



read more

License to litigate: Exclusive licensee may sue without patent owner

by | Sep 24, 2026 | ,

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed dismissal of a patent and copyright infringement action, finding that an exclusive license remained in force, transferred all substantial rights in the asserted patents, and permitted the licensee to sue without joining the patent owner. TexasLDPC Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., Case No. 25-1074 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 14, 2026) (Moore, Chen, Bissoon).

TexasLDPC exclusively licensed a portfolio of low-density parity check (LDPC) technology patents and related copyrights from Texas A&M University. The agreement granted TexasLDPC broad rights to make, use, sell, sublicense, and enforce the licensed technology, as well as to recover damages for infringement. Texas A&M retained limited rights, including rights for research and educational purposes, certain rights associated with a preexisting Marvell license, and approval rights over assignment.

After TexasLDPC was unable to secure customers or sublicensees, it shifted its business toward patent and copyright enforcement and sued Broadcom, Avago, and LSI for infringement.

The district court dismissed the action on two grounds. First, it concluded that the exclusive license automatically terminated when TexasLDPC abandoned commercial development and became an enforcement-focused entity, reasoning that TexasLDPC had “cease[d] its business operations.” Second, the district court held that, even if the exclusive license remained in effect, TexasLDPC had not received all substantial rights in the asserted patents and therefore could not sue without joining Texas A&M, which had asserted sovereign immunity and refused to join the lawsuit. TexasLDPC appealed.

The Federal Circuit rejected both of the district court’s conclusions and reversed.

As to termination, the Federal Circuit found that patent enforcement qualified as a contemplated “business operation” under the agreement. Several provisions expressly treated enforcement as part of TexasLDPC’s “commercially reasonable efforts,” and the agreement separately granted TexasLDPC the right to bring infringement actions and retain infringement recoveries. The Court therefore concluded that TexasLDPC did not cease its business operations merely because it stopped pursuing commercialization and focused instead on enforcement.

The Federal Circuit next found that the agreement transferred all substantial rights in the asserted patents. Considering the agreement as a whole, the Court emphasized TexasLDPC’s exclusive rights to make, use, and sell licensed products; sublicense the technology; bring infringement actions; and collect damages without Texas A&M’s approval. Although Texas A&M retained certain rights, including limited practice rights and the ability to enforce against Marvell, the Court found those reservations insufficient to defeat TexasLDPC’s status as the holder of all substantial rights. TexasLDPC therefore had standing to sue in its own name without joining Texas A&M.

Finally, the Federal Circuit found that Texas A&M was not otherwise a required party under Rule 19. The district court had reasoned that Texas A&M’s absence could impair access to potentially relevant discovery. The Federal Circuit rejected that rationale, explaining that “Rule 19 is not a discovery tool.” The fact that an absent party may possess relevant evidence does not, standing alone, make that party necessary where the court can otherwise accord meaningful relief.



read more

Fifth Circuit scrolls past Ninth Circuit “Server Test” for online copyright infringement

by | Sep 10, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected the Ninth Circuit’s “server test” for determining whether embedded online content infringes a copyright owner’s public display right and concluded that URLs are not categorically excluded from qualifying as copyright management information (CMI) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Emmerich Newspapers, Inc. v. Particle Media, Inc., Case No. 23-60550 (5th Cir. Aug. 27, 2026) (King, Higginson, Duncan, JJ.)

Emmerich Newspapers publishes local news content online. Particle Media operates NewsBreak, a news aggregation website and application that links to content from various publishers, including Emmerich. One NewsBreak feature, called Framed View, allowed users to view a live version of an Emmerich webpage within a frame appearing in the NewsBreak interface.

Emmerich sued Particle for copyright infringement, alleging that Framed View violated Emmerich’s exclusive right under 17 USC § 106(5) to publicly display its copyrighted content. Emmerich also asserted a DMCA claim, contending that its URLs constituted CMI and that Particle improperly removed or altered that information when Emmerich content appeared under NewsBreak URLs.

The district court granted summary judgment to Particle. Applying the Ninth Circuit’s server test, first articulated in Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com (2007), the district court concluded that Particle did not infringe Emmerich’s display right because Particle did not store copies of Emmerich’s content on its own servers and instead linked to content transmitted from Emmerich’s servers. The district court also concluded that URLs could not constitute CMI because they primarily function as internet addresses. The Fifth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal addressing whether the server test provides the proper standard for display-right infringement and whether URLs may constitute CMI.

The Fifth Circuit declined to adopt the server test. Under that test, an entity that does not store a copy of a work on its own server generally does not “display” the work even if the entity embeds or frames content stored elsewhere. The Court concluded that this approach improperly transforms the Copyright Act’s requirement that a work be “fixed” into a requirement that the alleged infringer possess a copy of the work. The statutory definition of “fixed,” the Court explained, does not impose such a possession requirement.

Instead, the Fifth Circuit focused on the statutory requirement that a public display involve transmitting the work. The Court explained that determining whether this “transmit requirement” is satisfied requires identifying where the transmission originates and whether the transmission was permitted.

Applying that framework to Framed View, the Fifth Circuit concluded that Particle did not itself transmit Emmerich’s content. The transmission originated from Emmerich’s server, while NewsBreak merely sent a request for that content. The Court also emphasized that Emmerich’s server could have rejected the request. Thus, although the Court rejected the server test’s doctrinal basis, it concluded that Particle’s use of Framed View did not violate Emmerich’s public display right.

The Fifth Circuit cautioned that its finding was limited to the circumstances before it, suggesting that the analysis might differ where a copyright owner lacks the technological ability to reject [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Floored: Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal supports appellate jurisdiction

by | Sep 3, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a plaintiff’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims while vacating dismissal of its copyright infringement claims involving architectural floorplans, concluding that the Court had appellate jurisdiction despite the plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Kipp Flores Architects, LLC v. AMH Creekside Development, LLC, Case No. 23-50750 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2026) (Willett, J.) (Haynes, J., concurring) (Oldham, J., dissenting).

Kipp Flores Architects (KFA) owned copyrights in architectural building plans and technical drawings that it licensed to defendants for use in constructing buildings. The licenses required defendants to include specified copyright management information (CMI) when displaying the copyrighted works. KFA and defendant American Housing Ventures (AHV) later worked with other companies to develop floorplans and technical documents for AHV’s construction projects. Those documents did not contain the required CMI. AHV subsequently provided the floorplans to the remaining defendants for use in developing another building, and those defendants used the floorplans, still without CMI, in online marketing materials.

KFA asserted claims for DMCA violations, copyright infringement, conversion, and specific performance. The district court dismissed all of KFA’s DMCA and conversion claims, along with some of its remaining claims against certain defendants. Seeking to appeal the dismissals, KFA moved under Rule 41(a)(2) to voluntarily dismiss its remaining claims, and the district court granted the motion. KFA then appealed.

The Fifth Circuit first considered whether the Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal created an appealable final judgment. Rule 41(a) permits dismissal of an action, not individual claims. The Court nevertheless concluded that the district court’s error in permitting dismissal of KFA’s remaining claims did not deprive the Fifth Circuit of appellate jurisdiction. The error was a “reversible error, not an unappealable nullity.”

The Fifth Circuit also distinguished its precedent involving Rule 41(a)(1). Unlike a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal, which is self-effectuating, a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal requires a court order. The district court’s order granting KFA’s motion therefore constituted a “legally operative act of dismissal” sufficient to create appellate jurisdiction.

Turning to the merits, the Fifth Circuit addressed KFA’s copyright infringement and DMCA claims. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (AWCPA) protects architectural works while earlier copyright law separately protected architectural plans as pictorial, graphic, or sculptural (PGS) works. Section 120(a) of the Copyright Act creates a safe harbor for pictures or other pictorial representations of architectural works embodied in buildings located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. Although § 120(a) does not apply to rights arising solely from PGS works, the Court concluded that KFA’s floorplans could fall within the safe harbor as far as they depicted copyrighted architectural works. The Court also concluded that § 120(a) can apply to representations created before a building becomes publicly visible but distributed or displayed afterward.

The Fifth Circuit nevertheless determined that the district court erred in dismissing KFA’s infringement claim under § 120(a). KFA was not required to plead facts negating the safe harbor because § 120(a) operates as an affirmative defense. KFA’s [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Senate passes bill to improve CBP mechanisms to block importation of counterfeit goods

by | Aug 20, 2026 | ,

Blocking the importation of counterfeit goods could soon become easier. On August 7, 2026, the US Senate unanimously passed S 2677, a bill that would allow greater coordination between US Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and relevant stakeholders in determining whether imported goods violate trademark or copyright law.

Sponsored by Senator Chuck Grassley and co-sponsored by Senator Margaret Wood Hassan, S 2677 would amend 19 U.S.C. § 1628a to authorize CBP to share nonpublic information to rightsholders for examination when assessing potential copyright or trademark violations. The bill would also expand the parties with which CBP may share information. While current law permits disclosure only to certain rightsholders, S 2677 would allow CBP to share information with “any other party with an interest in the merchandise, as determined appropriate by the Commissioner.” The bill would also permit such information sharing when CBP has a “reasonable suspicion” of a violation, rather than requiring officials to “suspect” one.

The US House of Representatives passed a very similar bill, HR 4930, on April 27, 2026, and the two versions will need to be reconciled. During House Ways and Means Committee proceedings, Chief Trade Counsel Joshua Snead and Representatives Blake Moore and Bradley Schneider explained that the legislation responds to concerns raised by CBP about constraints under existing law. According to Snead, CBP requested the changes and expressed concerns under both the Biden and Trump administrations that the Defend Trade Secrets Act could prevent it from sharing information useful to intellectual property enforcement. Representative Moore said the legislation would help CBP “recognize and flag patterns of behavior” by repeat offenders.



read more

Book of wisdom has limits: Can’t impute knowledge of later-arising facts to hypothetical negotiation

by | Jul 30, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated in part a US Court of Federal Claims damages award, finding that the court erred in applying the book of wisdom in its damages analysis and assessing noncompensatory damages against the government. 4DD Holdings, LLC, et al. v. United States, Case No. 2024-1996 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026) (Hughes, Prost, Stark, JJ.)

4DD licensed TETRA software to the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Veterans Affairs to improve interoperability among existing military healthcare databases. Under the license, the government was permitted to make only a single backup copy of TETRA. 4DD later discovered that the government had made thousands of unauthorized copies of the software and sued for copyright infringement. During discovery, 4DD learned that the government had deleted TETRA copies from its development and test center and had destroyed evidence related to those copies. 4DD moved for sanctions.

The Court of Federal Claims imposed about $1.1 million in sanctions, found that the government had exceeded the scope of the licenses by hundreds of thousands of Federator cores and Studio seats, and awarded about $12.7 million in damages based on a hypothetical negotiation rather than the parties’ license agreement. In assessing the parties’ bargaining positions, the claims court relied in part on the fact that TETRA was never implemented, had no established profitability, and faced competition from a less expensive software product. 4DD appealed.

4DD argued that the claims court should have calculated damages using the royalty rates established in the parties’ license agreement, which it contended would have resulted in an award amount between $3 billion and $5 billion. The Federal Circuit disagreed, explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b), which provides for “reasonable and entire compensation,” does not require a particular methodology for calculating copyright damages. Although a reasonable royalty may be based on an established royalty rate, it may also be determined through a hypothetical negotiation. The Court explained that the relevance of prior license agreements depends on the extent to which they are economically comparable to the infringing use. Because the government’s licensed use differed materially from the scope of its infringing use, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claims court did not abuse its discretion in determining damages through a hypothetical negotiation rather than by simply applying the parties’ license rates.

4DD also argued that the claims court misapplied the book of wisdom doctrine by imputing to the government (at the time of the hypothetical negotiation) knowledge of its later decision to abandon the TETRA project. The Federal Circuit agreed. The Court explained that although later-occurring facts may be considered to reduce uncertainty and illuminate the value that existed at the time of the hypothetical negotiation, they may not be used to impute knowledge of unforeseeable future events that affect the value of the license. Here, the court’s claims improperly relied on the government’s subsequent change in leadership and resulting decision to discontinue the project before TETRA was implemented to diminish 4DD’s bargaining [...]

Continue Reading



read more

It’s a wrap: Constructive discovery under copyright statute of limitations

by | Jul 30, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment dismissing a copyright infringement claim as untimely, finding that the extensive publicity surrounding the accused works, combined with the copyright owner’s ties to Italy and the local art community, meant that a reasonably diligent owner should have discovered the alleged infringement years before filing suit. Hayden v. Koons, Case No. 25-498-cv (2d Cir. July 21, 2026) (Chin, Sullivan, Lee, JJ.)

Michael Hayden, a US artist who lived and worked primarily in Italy from about 1980 to 2007, created a Styrofoam sculpture depicting a serpent wrapped around boulders for Italian performer and politician Ilona Staller. In 1988, Hayden sold the sculpture to Diva Futura, Staller’s production company, for approximately $900. The parties did not execute a written agreement or discuss copyright ownership or third-party use. Hayden designed the sculpture as a platform for Staller’s live performances and film productions.

In 1989, Koons hired Staller to pose with him for photographs taken on her sets, including Hayden’s serpentine sculpture. Koons later used the photographs to create works in his Made in Heaven series. Three works were at issue: Made in Heaven (1989), Jeff and Ilona (Made in Heaven) (1990) and Jeff in the Position of Adam (1990), each depicting Koons and Staller posing on Hayden’s sculpture.

The Made in Heaven series drew substantial international attention. The works appeared in magazines, and Jeff and Ilona (Made in Heaven) was exhibited at the Venice Biennale. Publicity surrounding the series continued for decades.

Hayden asserted that he did not discover Koons’ use of the sculpture until 2019, when a business partner sent him an Italian article concerning unrelated litigation that included an image of Made in Heaven. Hayden registered the sculpture with the US Copyright Office later that year and filed suit against Koons in December 2021, alleging copyright infringement, removal, or falsification of copyright management information under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and false authorship under the Visual Artists Rights Act.

The district court granted summary judgment for Koons, finding Hayden’s copyright claim untimely. Hayden appealed.

Under 17 U.S.C. § 507(b), a copyright claim must be filed within three years after it accrues. In the Second Circuit, a copyright claim accrues under the discovery rule when the copyright owner actually discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered, the infringement. The parties agreed that Hayden lacked actual knowledge before 2019. The dispute centered on whether he should have discovered the alleged infringement earlier.

Hayden argued that constructive discovery required inquiry notice and actual knowledge of facts suggesting probable infringement. The Second Circuit rejected that proposed standard. The Court explained that inquiry notice may help identify when a reasonable plaintiff would have begun investigating, but it is not itself the governing standard for constructive discovery. The Court also declined to require actual knowledge of triggering facts, reasoning that doing so would collapse constructive discovery into actual discovery.

The Second Circuit explained that the proper inquiry is whether the defendant identified sufficient facts [...]

Continue Reading



read more

La vida loca: First Circuit vacates summary judgment entered before meaningful discovery

by | Jul 1, 2026 |

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated summary judgment in favor of singer Ricky Martin in a copyright infringement action, concluding that the district court improperly resolved key factual issues without allowing the plaintiff to obtain discovery. The Court also vacated the district court’s order invalidating the plaintiff’s copyright registration because that ruling depended on the same prematurely decided issues. Luis Adrián Cortés-Ramos v. Enrique Martin-Morales, a/k/a Ricky Martin, Case No. 24-1805 (1st Cir. June 12, 2026) (Thompson, Aframe, JJ.) (Barron, J., dissenting in part).

The dispute stems from Cortés-Ramos’s submission of a song and music video to a contest sponsored by a recording studio and Ricky Martin for inclusion on the 2014 FIFA World Cup official album. After Martin released the song “Vida,” Cortés-Ramos alleged that it infringed his copyrighted work. Martin defended on the ground that Cortés-Ramos had assigned his copyright to the recording studio by agreeing to the contest rules. Cortés-Ramos contended that he never received those rules despite signing documents acknowledging compliance with them.

The district court rejected Cortés-Ramos’s argument that the dispute belonged in arbitration because Martin was not a party to the arbitration agreement between Cortés-Ramos and the recording studio. The court then adopted an expedited summary judgment schedule that foreclosed discovery, concluding that Cortés-Ramos had assigned his rights to the recording studio and, as a result, that his copyright registration was invalid. Cortés-Ramos appealed.

The First Circuit agreed that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction because Martin could not be compelled to arbitrate under an agreement to which he was not a party. The Court cautioned, however, that factual findings in the litigation could have preclusive effect in the parallel arbitration between Cortés-Ramos and the recording studio.

The First Circuit nevertheless vacated the summary judgment ruling, explaining that Cortés-Ramos had repeatedly sought discovery regarding evidence uniquely within the possession of the recording studio and Martin. Although Cortés-Ramos had not formally moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), the Court treated his repeated requests for discovery as functionally seeking Rule 56(d) relief. The Court found it fundamentally unfair to resolve dispositive issues while denying Cortés-Ramos access to evidence necessary to challenge Martin’s assertion that the contest documents assigned ownership of the work.

Because the district court entered summary judgment without permitting discovery on issues central to ownership of the copyright, the First Circuit vacated both the summary judgment order and the ruling invalidating Cortés-Ramos’ copyright registration and remanded for further proceedings.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES