Lefkowitz v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC, 23 F. Supp. 3d 344

Lefkowitz owns an exclusive copyright in the Lefkowitz Images, which are registered with the US Copyright Office.
The TSM Agreements (1997, 2000) authorized limited licenses for TSM to issue licenses and appointed TSM as Lefkowitz’s exclusive agent; licenses could not be bought out exclusively without consent.
Control of licensing transferred from TSM to Corbis in 2000/2003, with Lefkowitz’s assent that terms remained in force; Corbis could license and recover damages for unauthorized uses under its authority.
Corbis later issued a Representation Agreement (Feb. 12, 2003) giving Corbis authority to grant limited-use licenses and recover damages at Corbis’ expense; a Ten Times Provision allowed ten times the license fee for unauthorized uses.
Defendants McGraw-Hill allegedly licensed Lefkowitz Images from TSM/Corbis between 1998 and 2011 and used them in publications beyond license terms; the FAC attached Corbis Agreements (Nov. 19, 2001 and June 2005) as controlling terms.
Plaintiff filed the FAC on April 1, 2013 asserting copyright infringement and breach of contract; the court granted a 12(c) judgment on pleadings, denying copyright claims only to works not listed on the Lefkowitz Chart and dismissing breach for lack of standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the FAC adequately pleads copyright infringement	Lefkowitz owns the copyrights; the Lefkowitz Chart identifies infringed works; ownership, registration, and acts of infringement are pled.	Plaintiff fails to specify every infringement and time/place of each act; overly broad or non-exhaustive listing undermines pleading.	Copyright claim survives for listed works; claims for unlisted works are dismissed.
Whether copyright claims are barred by the statute of limitations	Discovery rule applies; plaintiff pleading insufficient to show accrual is fatal to limitations defense.	Injury rule applies; acts prior to 2010-04-01 are time-barred.	Psihoyos discovery rule applies; insufficient facts to determine accrual; denial of dismissal on limitations grounds.
Whether Plaintiff is estopped from asserting his breach of contract claim	He has standing to enforce Corbis Agreements and breach is actionable.	Massachusetts Action held Plaintiff lacked standing to enforce the Corbis Agreements; precludes this claim.	Issue preclusion collateral estoppel applies; breach claim dismissed without prejudice.

Warren v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 2d 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (pleading copyright infringement with identified works and ownership suffices)
Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
Iqbal v. Hasty, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (rule 8 notice and plausibility requirements; not all allegations survive)
Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (informational pleading permissible when facts are in defendant's control)
Urbont v. Sony Music Entm’t, 863 F. Supp. 2d 279 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (accrual rule uncertainty; injury rule vs discovery rule discussed)
Psihoyos v. Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2014) (discovery rule applies to copyright infringement accrual)
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (S. Ct. 2014) (equitable laches not barred if claim within statute; discusses accrual context)
Thelen LLP, 736 F.3d 213 (2d Cir. 2013) (treatment of documents attached to complaint and pleading standards)
L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 647 F.3d 419 (2d Cir. 2011) (pleading standards under Rule 8 and Twombly/Iqbal applied)
Marvullo v. Gruner & Jahr, 105 F. Supp. 2d 225 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (illustrates inadequacy of non-specific allegations)
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (S. Ct. 1979) (collateral estoppel framework guidance)
Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 2002) (collateral estoppel and related preclusion concepts)