734 F.3d 142
2d Cir.2013Background
- UPRS and Gelb claimed copyrights in the First Complaint and First Exhibits used in Frankel v. Cole (no. 06-cv-0439).
- Kaplan, the class action attorney, filed the First Complaint and First Exhibits on behalf of named plaintiffs in 2006.
- Gelb and UPRS later withdrew Powers of Attorney; new counsel represented the named plaintiffs in the appeal.
- Gelb and UPRS obtained registrations for the First Complaint and First Exhibits, but the appeal proceeded without them in part.
- In 2011, Gelb and UPRS filed suit against Kaplan asserting infringement based on use of the First Complaint and Exhibits in amended pleadings (Second Complaint/Second Exhibits).
- District court dismissed for failure to state a claim, holding an irrevocable implied license to file/amend the pleadings and use the documents in litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether authorization to use a litigation document abroad grants irrevocable rights. | Gelb/UPRS contend authorization is revocable and can bar amendments. | Kaplan (on behalf of plaintiffs) argues authorization allows derivatives and amendments within litigation. | Authorization is irrevocable throughout the litigation to all parties and the court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sussman v. Bank of Israel, 56 F.3d 450 (2d Cir. 1995) (foundation of action; pleading as operative document)
- Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1990) (pleading as basis for action and rights therein)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (pleading standard and reliance on complaint)
- Katz v. Realty Equities Corp. of N.Y., 521 F.2d 1354 (2d Cir. 1975) (discovery directed to complaint; role of operative pleading)
- De La Mar v. Hardeley, 157 F.547 (2d Cir. 1907) (pleadings as vehicle to enforce rights)
- Slayton v. American Express Co., 460 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2006) (court's authority to manage pleadings in litigation)
- Morley v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 66 F.3d 21 (2d Cir. 1995) (amendment practices in litigation)
- Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court 1989) (court management of litigation processes)
- Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court 1975) (attorney choice as fundamental right)
- U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (Supreme Court 2006) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel context)