Time is On Your Side in Copyright; the Supreme Court Decides Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

July 24, 2014

On May 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decided the closely watched Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., holding that the equitable defense of laches cannot be used to bar a claim for damages due to copyright infringement that is brought within the three-year statute of limitations set forth in the Copyright Statute. The case arises from the 1980 critically acclaimed film Raging Bull, directed by Martin Scorsese, based on the life of boxing champion Jake LaMotta. LaMotta and his friend Frank Petrella chronicled the boxer’s life in a screenplay and registered a copyright for it in 1963. Paula Petrella, daughter of Frank Petrella and heir to the 1963 screenplay, renewed the copyright in 1991, and in 1998 told MGM that she believed the movie infringed her copyright. In 2009, Petrella sued MGM for infringement and in turn, MGM moved to toss the case, claiming that under the doctrine of laches, Paula’s 18 year delay in filing the claim was unreasonable and prejudicial, and should bar the suit. The lower courts agreed and dismissed the case, however, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that laches cannot be invoked to bar copyright infringement claims for damages that are brought within the three-year statute of limitations period expressly set forth in the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 507(b)).

Although the Supreme Court concluded that laches cannot be used to completely bar a claim if it is within the statutory limitation period, in extraordinary circumstances, laches still could be invoked to curtail relief, especially if the plaintiff unreasonably delayed in bringing suit and the defendant expended significant sums in the interim to develop and produce the alleged infringing product. While this may provide some comfort to long term continuing infringements, it necessarily alters the calculus that the passage of time alone signals the all clear sign for potential infringement claims. Not so says the Supreme Court. For a complete review of the holding in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., click here.