[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 58 (Friday, March 25, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16989-17008]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-06264]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Parts 201, 220, 222, 223, and 224

[Docket No. 2021-6]


Copyright Claims Board: Initiating of Proceedings and Related 
Procedures

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is amending its regulations to 
establish procedures governing the initial stages of a Copyright Claims 
Board proceeding. The regulations provide requirements regarding filing 
a claim, the Board's compliance review, service, notice of the claim, 
the respondent's opt-out election, responses, and counterclaims.

DATES: Effective April 25, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 
General Counsel, by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#375a525143775458474e455e505f4319505841"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="244941425064474b545d564d434c500a434b52">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telephone at 
202-707-8350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (``CASE'') 
Act of 2020 \1\ directs the Copyright Office to establish the Copyright 
Claims Board (``CCB''), a voluntary forum for parties seeking 
resolution of certain copyright disputes that have a total monetary 
value of $30,000 or less. The CCB is an alternative forum to federal 
court and is designed to be accessible to pro se individuals and 
individuals without much formal exposure to copyright.\2\ The Office 
published a notification of inquiry (``NOI'') asking for public 
comments on the CCB's operations and procedures.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 116-260, sec. 212, 134 Stat. 1182, 2176 (2020).
    \2\ See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 18-20 (2019); S. Rep. 
No. 116-105, at 7-8 (2019).
    \3\ 86 FR 16156 (Mar. 26, 2021). Comments received in response 
to the March 26, 2021 NOI are available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2021-0001-0001/comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the NOI, the Office published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (``NPRM''), proposing rules governing the initiation of 
proceedings before the CCB and related procedures.\4\ These rules 
addressed filing a claim, the CCB's review of the claim to ensure that 
it complies with the relevant statutory requirements and regulations 
(``compliance review''), service, notice of the claim, the respondent's 
ability to opt out, the response, and counterclaims.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 86 FR 53897 (Sept. 29, 2021). Comments received in response 
to the September 29, 2021 NPRM are available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket/COLC-2021-0004/comments. References to 
these comments are by party name (abbreviated where appropriate), 
followed by ``Initial NPRM Comments'' or ``Reply NPRM Comments,'' as 
appropriate.
    \5\ 86 FR 53897.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office sought public input concerning its proposals for the 
initiation of proceedings and related procedures and received 186 
responsive comments. The Office addresses these comments along with 
changes made to the proposed rule below.

II. Final Rule

A. Fees

1. Fee for Filing a Claim
    The CASE Act provides that the sum total of any filing fees, 
including the fee to commence a proceeding, may not exceed the cost to 
file an action in federal district court (currently $402 \6\) but may 
not be less than $100.\7\ In the NPRM, the Office noted that the CASE 
Act's Senate Report proposed ``that the Office consider a two-tiered 
fee structure, with an initial fee assessed when the claim is filed and 
a second fee assessed after the claim becomes active.'' \8\ At that 
time, the Office declined to institute a two-tiered fee system, under 
the theory that where a ``claimant did not move on to the second tier, 
the total filing fees would not reach the statutory floor.'' \9\ 
Accordingly, a single filing fee of $100 to commence a proceeding was 
proposed. However, the Office invited comments on the advisability of a 
two-tiered fee system and whether the Office has the authority to 
institute such a system under the CASE Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The statutory fee for filing suit in a federal district 
court is $350, 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), and an additional fee of $52 is 
charged as an administrative fee by the Judicial Conference of the 
United States. Id.
    \7\ 17 U.S.C. 1510(c).
    \8\ 86 FR 53904 (citing S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 4 n.4).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters overwhelmingly supported a two-tiered fee system.\10\ 
They offered many practical arguments, including that an upfront fee of 
$100 may be cost-prohibitive for many claimants, especially when 
respondents subsequently opt out of the proceeding, and that a two-
tiered system would increase participation by minimizing the loss to a 
claimant where a respondent opts out before a proceeding becomes 
active.\11\ Commenters suggested setting the first fee in the range of 
$10 to $55, with many suggesting the first fee should be around 
$25.\12\ Others did not take a position on a single fee or two-tiered 
approach, but suggested reducing the filing fee to less than $100.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ But cf. Michael Bynum Initial NPRM Comments at 1 (not 
mentioning the two-tiered vs. single-tier choice, but stating that 
he was ``comfortable'' with a $100 fee and that it was 
``reasonable'').
    \11\ See, e.g., Copyright Alliance, ACT <radical> App Ass'n, Am. 
Photographic Artists, Am. Soc'y for Collective Rights Licensing, Am. 
Soc'y of Media Photographers, The Authors Guild, CreativeFuture, 
Digital Media Licensing Ass'n, Graphic Artists Guild, Indep. Book 
Pubs. Ass'n, Music Artists Coalition, Music Creators N. Am., Nat'l 
Press Photographers Ass'n, N. Am. Nature Photography Ass'n, Prof. 
Photographers of Am., Recording Academy, Screen Actors Guild-Am. 
Fed. of Television and Radio Artists, Soc'y of Composers & 
Lyricists, Songwriters Guild of Am., & Songwriters of N. Am. 
(``Copyright Alliance et al.'') Initial NPRM Comments at 8-11; Am. 
Intell. Prop. L. Ass'n (``AIPLA'') Initial NPRM Comments at 3; The 
Authors Guild Reply NPRM Comments at 1-2; Mark Reback Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1; Jay Foster Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
    \12\ See, e.g., AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3 ($35-55); 
Authors Guild Reply NPRM Comments at 1-2 ($25-35); Ryan Conners 
Initial NPRM Comments at 1 ($25); Ricky Jackson Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1 ($25); Sylvia Phipps Initial NPRM Comments at 1 ($25); 
Anonymous Reply NPRM Comments at 3 ($50); Sydney Krantz Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1 ($25); Donna Barr Initial NPRM Comments at 1 ($15); 
Ritterbin Photography Initial NPRM Comments at 1 ($25); Lisa Shaftel 
Initial NPRM Comments at 5 ($25); Suriya Ahmer Initial NPRM Comments 
at 1 ($25); Mark Woodward Reply NPRM Comments at 1 ($20-25); Hans 
Rupert Initial NPRM Comments at ($10).
    \13\ See, e.g., John Long Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 9TH Eye in 
The Quad Productions Initial NPRM Comments at 1; c, z Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1; Cherry Wood Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Charlotte 
Cotton Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Dan Milham Initial NPRM Comments 
at 1; Gareth Hinds Initial NPRM Comments at 1; K Muldoon Initial 
NPRM Comments at 1; Bree McCool Photography Initial NPRM Comments at 
1; Linda Langford Initial NPRM Comments at 1; Angela Jarman Initial 
NPRM Comments at 1.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16990]]

    Two comments, reflecting the views of multiple commenters, offered 
their analysis of the CASE Act permitting a two-tiered fee. As the 
Office noted in the NPRM, the CASE Act expressly refers to two separate 
``filing fees,'' including the fee to commence a proceeding and the fee 
for the Register's review.\14\ While the Act does not state that these 
are the only fees that may be assessed, the Office interpreted 17 
U.S.C. 1510(c) as dictating the ``upper and lower limits to the filing 
fees it may assess,'' and that the section requires a ``statutory 
minimum'' filing fee of $100.\15\ The Copyright Alliance et al. 
challenged the Office's reading of 1510(c), stating that that provision 
is not ``instructive of how much the Office must actually receive in 
fees each time a claimant commences a claim,'' but instead is 
``instructing the Register on how to set the fee schedule in the 
regulations.'' \16\ AIPLA looked at the statutory text, which states 
that the total of all fees ``including,'' but not limited to, the fee 
for commencing a proceeding must equal at least $100 to conclude that 
``[r]ather than a bottom limit on the initial filing fee, the Act sets 
a $100 minimum on the `sum total of such filing fees[.]' '' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 86 FR 53904 (citing 17 U.S.C. 1506(e), (x)).
    \15\ Id.
    \16\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 9 
(emphasis omitted).
    \17\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3 (citing 17 U.S.C. 
1510(c)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon careful evaluation of the statute and the submitted comments, 
the Office is amending the proposed rule to include a two-tiered fee 
system, with a first payment of $40 due upon filing and a second 
payment of $60 due once a proceeding becomes active. Under the two-
tiered approach adopted in this final rule, the ``sum total'' of all 
``filing fees'' will be at least $100 and no more than $402, satisfying 
the requirements of section 1510(c).
    In adopting a two-tiered fee, the Office is informed in part by the 
statutory analysis offered by AIPLA and the Copyright Alliance et al. 
as well as its own reading of the statute. The Office believes that the 
CASE Act does not establish a minimum initial fee to commence a 
proceeding, so long as the sum total of all filing fees set by the 
Office meets the statutory requirements, including that the total fees 
are not less than $100. It is clear from the statute, and as noted in 
the NPRM,\18\ that the $100 minimum applies not to the fee that 
accompanies the filing of a claim, but rather to the ``sum total'' of 
whatever filing fees are prescribed in regulations established by the 
Register. Therefore, while under the statute, the combined total of all 
filing fees that may be assessed must be at least $100, the statute 
does not require that each claimant pay $100 at the outset before a 
proceeding becomes active.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 86 FR 53904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Office agrees with commenters that a two-tiered 
fee system furthers the goals of the CCB, a factor the statute directs 
the Office to consider when setting filing fees.\19\ As noted by the 
Copyright Alliance et al.,\20\ the CASE Act's Senate Report counsels 
that filing fees should not be set so high as to discourage potential 
claimants from using the CCB to resolve their disputes, knowing that 
when respondents exercise their right to opt out it will result in the 
claimants' loss of the filing fees.\21\ The two-tiered fee system 
reduces the financial outlay to institute a proceeding. Requiring 
payment of a filing fee of $100 when respondents may yet opt out could 
cause potential claimants to conclude that bringing a claim before the 
CCB is too great a financial risk. A chief objective of the CASE Act is 
to provide a forum that is ``accessible especially for pro se parties 
and those with little prior formal exposure to copyright laws who 
cannot otherwise afford to have their claims and defenses heard in 
federal court.'' \22\ This fundamental goal is not served if the fee to 
commence a proceeding, which risks being lost if the respondent opts 
out, serves as too high a barrier to the filing of genuine claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 U.S.C. 1510(c).
    \20\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 10 
(quoting S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 4).
    \21\ S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 4.
    \22\ H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office has set the amount of the first payment at $40 and the 
second payment at $60 for many reasons. First, a $40/$60 split keeps 
the overall fee at $100, meaning that the published total filing fee 
will, by itself, fulfill the statutory requirement of having total 
filing fees be at least $100. Second, Congress suggested that if a two-
tiered system was created, ``the initial filing fee itself should be 
smaller than the fee charged later when a proceeding becomes active.'' 
\23\ Third, in most cases that reach active proceeding status, much 
more of the work required by the CCB will occur after the proceeding 
becomes active, meaning that it makes sense to have the second fee 
higher than the first as opposed to a $50/$50 split. Fourth, while the 
Office received many comments asking for a two-tiered system, almost 
none of those commenters expressed any issue with the total of the two 
tiers equaling $100.\24\ Fifth, as expressed above, the $40 fee fits 
squarely within the general range of prices suggested by commenters for 
the first payment. And, sixth, the first payment should not be so low 
that it does not have a deterrent effect on purely frivolous claims, a 
concern expressed in the Office's original study leading to the CASE 
Act (recommending a filing fee in order to ``discourage spurious 
claims'').\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ S. Rep. No. 116-105, at 4.
    \24\ But see The Authors Guild Reply NPRM Comments at 1-2.
    \25\ U.S. Copyright Office, Copyright Small Claims 122 & n.849 
(2013), https://www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/usco-smallcopyrightclaims.pdf (``Copyright Small Claims'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office notes that the $40/$60 split represents the Office's 
best estimate of proper first and second payments given the information 
available. Should the Office determine after the benefit of experience 
that a different split makes sense (e.g., if the current first payment 
amount does not appear to be sufficiently high to deter frivolous 
claims), it will engage in a new rulemaking process at that time.
    Implementation of this fee system requires additional regulations 
concerning, for example, the timing of the second payment and the 
consequences of the failure to make that payment. These regulations are 
described in more detail below.
2. Fee for Counterclaims
    The Office did not include a fee for filing counterclaims in the 
proposed rule based on the lack of express statutory authorization for 
counterclaim fees and the fact that federal district courts do not 
charge fees for counterclaims, but it invited comments.\26\ The Office 
received two comments on this issue. The Copyright Alliance et al. 
agreed that there should not be a filing fee for counterclaims since 
``the CCB is intended to be an affordable alternative to federal 
court'' and federal courts do not charge a fee for bringing 
counterclaims.\27\ AIPLA recommended instituting such a fee to defray 
the costs of the CCB checking counterclaims to make sure they are 
compliant with the rules and to deter the filing of frivolous 
counterclaims, noting that other administrative forums, including the 
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, charge fees for counterclaims.\28\ 
Upon consideration of these comments, the Office has decided not to 
include a fee for filing counterclaims in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 86 FR 53904.
    \27\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 11; 
Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 10-11.
    \28\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 16991]]

A. Initiating a Claim

    The NPRM included proposed regulations on initiating claims before 
the CCB.\29\ These regulations contemplated that claims would be 
submitted on a fillable form provided on the CCB's electronic filing 
system, called ``eCCB.'' The claim form would include certain key 
information about the claim, such as the identity of the parties, the 
type of claim asserted, the harm experienced, and other relevant 
facts.\30\ The Office received comments on the claim initiation 
process, discussed below. The Office also has endeavored to standardize 
the requirements for claims and counterclaims, where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 86 FR 53898.
    \30\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Pleading Requirements
    Commenters were split regarding whether they believed the pleading 
requirements for claims in the proposed rule were too burdensome or too 
lenient. In suggesting the rule was too lenient, New Media Rights 
questioned whether the pleading requirements were sufficient to place 
respondents on notice of the details of the claim,\31\ and two 
commenters suggested that the Office include a mechanism for 
respondents to request additional information before deciding whether 
to opt out.\32\ The Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, 
Inc. (``SFWA''), suggested that the rule was too burdensome, and that 
the pleading requirements in the proposed rule were too complex and 
could deter claimants from filing claims, especially without the 
assistance of an attorney.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ New Media Rights Initial NPRM Comments at 4.
    \32\ Organization for Transformative Works (``OTW'') Initial 
NPRM Comments at 8-9; New Media Rights Initial NPRM Comments at 4-5.
    \33\ SFWA Initial NPRM Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office intends the pleading requirements to represent a balance 
between claimants' and respondents' needs. The appropriate balance will 
ensure that a claim provides sufficient information to allow a 
respondent to make a meaningful assessment of whether to opt out or to 
proceed before the CCB, while not overly burdening the claimant. Though 
claimants are required to provide a fair amount of detail, the Office 
plans to make educational materials, such as the CCB Handbook, 
available to explain the pleading requirements while minimizing legal 
jargon. Furthermore, eCCB has been designed to provide guidance to 
claimants concerning what information they are required to provide via 
a fillable online form. Copyright Claims Attorneys will also be 
available to answer questions and provide guidance. If a Copyright 
Claims Attorney determines during the claim's compliance review that it 
does not provide sufficient information to place a respondent on 
notice, the CCB will order the claimant to provide more detail before 
allowing the claim to proceed. Additionally, the Office has included 
language in the final rule enabling parties to jointly request an 
extension of the opt-out period, as discussed below. Though the CCB 
ultimately must approve such requests, an extension may give the 
respondent additional time to approach the claimant during the opt-out 
period and request more information to determine whether to proceed or 
opt out.
    Commenters noted that the proposed rule did not include a 
requirement that claimants seeking a declaration of noninfringement 
plead any facts alleging the existence of a dispute or controversy, as 
is required for declaratory judgments.\34\ The Office has added this 
requirement to the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 13 
(citing 28 U.S.C. 2201).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, two commenters suggested that the requirement that 
claimants describe and estimate the ``monetary harm suffered'' \35\ was 
too limiting, since some claimants may seek statutory damages, profits, 
or no damages at all.\36\ The final rule broadens this language, 
requiring that claimants describe the harm they have suffered due to 
the alleged activity and the relief they are seeking, which may include 
an estimate of such relief. Though the NPRM included this as a 
requirement for all three types of claims, the final rule only includes 
it as a requirement for infringement and misrepresentation claims, 
since damages are not available for noninfringement claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 86 FR 53906.
    \36\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 13-14; 
Motion Picture Ass'n, Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. & Software and 
Info. Ass'n of Am. (``MPA, RIAA & SIIA'') Initial NPRM Comments at 
9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter suggested that claimants be permitted to serve a 
settlement demand, akin to an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with the claim, so that a 
respondent would have a choice between opting out, responding and 
participating in the proceeding, or settling. The commenter believed 
that this could also increase participation in CCB proceedings since 
the respondent would be aware of the level of potential liability at 
the outset.\37\ The Office is concerned that explicitly incorporating 
settlement demands such as these into the early stages of the process 
may encourage abusive use of the CCB, and that aggressive claimants 
would use such demands to intimidate respondents into a settlement or 
that high settlement demands would encourage respondents to opt out. 
Additionally, the Office believes that the revisions in the final rule 
requiring a claimant to describe the harm they have suffered and 
permitting them to include an estimate will better serve the goal of 
placing respondents on notice of the level of potential liability from 
the outset.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ James Doherty Initial NPRM Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, commenters suggested that the requirement that the 
claimant identify the category of work that the claim pertains to may 
be confusing, especially for pro se claimants, and that this 
information is not necessary, since the Office can easily determine it 
from the work's application or registration.\38\ The Office intends to 
provide guidance to claimants in its educational materials as well as 
within eCCB for determining the category of the work. Claimants who are 
unable to determine which category applies will be given an opportunity 
to describe the work in their own words instead. Though the Office may 
later be able to access this information in its records, identification 
of the category at this stage may provide helpful information to 
respondents in understanding the claim that is asserted. Indeed, New 
Media Rights believed the overall requirements for the claim, including 
the proposed rule's ``standard for describing the nature of the work'' 
to be ``inadequate'' for the respondent to understand the nature of the 
claim.\39\ The Office believes that the final rule requires claims to 
include sufficient information for the respondent to be properly 
informed before making an opt-out election or when responding to the 
claim. The eCCB will give the claimant information as to how to select 
the category of the work or to describe it and provide the respondent 
with information and helpful context regarding the nature of the claim. 
If the work has already been registered, the claim will include the 
registration number, so that the respondent also has the ability to 
look up the work in the Office's registration database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 12-13.
    \39\ New Media Rights Initial NPRM Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to commenters' observations that some of the technical 
pleading requirements may be too stringent, the Office made changes to

[[Page 16992]]

ease the burden on claimants while keeping respondents' interests in 
mind. First, the Office has removed the requirement that a claim must 
include a caption.\40\ Claimants still must identify all parties as 
part of the claim, but the proposed rule could be read to suggest that 
a claimant must separately provide a caption, which was not the 
Office's intention. Instead, eCCB will generate the caption from the 
information provided by the claimant. Second, the proposed rule 
required the claimant to identify an address for each respondent in 
every instance at the time the claim is filed.\41\ Recognizing that 
determining a respondent's address may be challenging and time-
consuming, the Office included a provision that enables claimants who 
are running up against the statute of limitations to file their claims 
without identifying the respondent's address. Such a claimant must 
certify that the statute of limitations is likely to expire within 30 
days of the date the claim is filed and provide the basis for such 
belief. The claimant will, however, have to provide the respondent's 
address before the claim can continue further. Third, in recognition of 
the fact that claimants may not know the specific dates when the 
infringing activity began or ended, the final rule requires claimants 
to identify when the infringement began and, if applicable, ended, but 
only to the extent known.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 86 FR 53905.
    \41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Contact Information
    In the NPRM, claimants were required to provide their email 
addresses and telephone numbers as part of the initial notice. The 
exception to this was where the claimant was represented by legal 
counsel, in which case the counsel's contact information would appear 
instead.\42\ The Office noted that making additional contact 
information for the claimant available to the respondent may facilitate 
communication, including with respect to settlement, but it may 
implicate other concerns as well, including some related to 
privacy.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Id. at 53907.
    \43\ Id. at 53900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were split on this issue. The Copyright Alliance et al. 
agreed with the privacy concerns raised by the Office and believed that 
making contact information available to a respondent should be optional 
rather than mandatory.\44\ Verizon did not think that the Office should 
be encouraging parties to communicate about settlement outside the CCB 
process.\45\ AIPLA acknowledged the privacy concerns, but thought that 
the benefits of facilitating communication between the parties early on 
in the process outweighed any harm and noted that comparable forums 
require claimants to provide some form of contact information.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 15.
    \45\ Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 3.
    \46\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office considered these comments and determined that claimants 
must provide a phone number, email address, and mailing address as part 
of the claim and initial notice, and respondents must provide a phone 
number, email address, and mailing address as part of the response. 
However, if a party is represented by counsel, that party's phone 
number and email address will be accessible to the CCB staff but will 
not be made available to the opposing party; the party's counsel's 
phone number and email address will be made available instead. The 
Office believes that making this contact information available will not 
only facilitate settlement, but will enable parties to communicate 
throughout the proceeding and exchange information through discovery. 
The final rule reflects these changes.
3. Bad-Faith Conduct at Claim Initiation Stage
    Several commenters requested that the Office adopt regulations to 
curb abusive use of the CCB.\47\ These comments were submitted before 
the Office published its NPRM on active proceedings, which includes 
provisions designed to prevent and address bad-faith conduct and which 
should address many of the concerns raised.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Verizon Initial NPRM 
Comments at 1; Computer & Comm's Indus. Ass'n (``CCIA'') Initial 
NPRM Comments at 2-3; OTW Initial NPRM Comments at 4-5.
    \48\ 86 FR 69890, 69893-94 (Dec. 8, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, some commenters raised specific concerns about abuse at 
the claim initiation stage. For example, two commenters pointed out 
that the NPRM did not require the copyright owner to certify the 
claim.\49\ Instead, the proposed rule required the party submitting the 
claim, who may be another claimant or a claimant's authorized 
representative, to certify that the information in the claim is 
accurate and truthful.\50\ The commenters suggested that copyright 
owners themselves be required to certify the claim.\51\ The Office 
believes that requiring each copyright owner to submit a separate 
certification may be burdensome and unnecessarily complicate the CCB's 
streamlined electronic filing process, especially in instances where 
there are multiple claimants or where a claimant is represented by 
counsel or authorized representative. Instead, the Office modified the 
certification rule to require certifying parties to affirm that they 
have confirmed the accuracy of the information with the claimant or, in 
the case of one claimant certifying a claim, with its co-claimants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; CCIA Initial NPRM 
Comments at 2-3.
    \50\ 86 FR 53906.
    \51\ Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; CCIA Initial NPRM 
Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Other Comments
    Commenters made additional suggestions with respect to claim 
initiation, such as adding a reminder in the claim form to check the 
libraries and archives opt-out list prior to filing, and providing a 
space for claimants to challenge entities they believe to be improperly 
included on the list.\52\ The Office agrees that claimants should check 
the libraries and archives opt-out list before filing a claim and that 
they may challenge an entity's inclusion on the list as part of their 
claim. The CCB may include reminders on its fillable claim forms. 
However, the Office believes that the more streamlined the claim form 
is, the more user-friendly it will be, and therefore will avoid 
requiring fields on the claim form that are targeted to less-than-
common circumstances. The Office intends to include reminders to check 
the library and archives opt-out list where a claimant is filing a 
claim against a library or archives, or an employee thereof, in the 
CCB's educational materials, such as the CCB Handbook, along with 
instructions for how to challenge an entity's inclusion on the list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, one comment suggested that the claim form remind 
claimants to check the designated service agent list.\53\ The Office 
currently intends to include this as a requirement in eCCB's claim form 
so that the initial notice may be generated based on the information in 
the claim, but the Office does not believe that a revision to the 
regulatory language is necessary. The CCB's educational materials will 
also provide information to claimants concerning the designated service 
agent directory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amazon also included recommendations for additional eCCB

[[Page 16993]]

functionality, such as including optimized search and filtering tools, 
in-docket searching, and a docket alert system.\54\ The Office agrees 
with these recommendations and notes that eCCB will have some of these 
features. Though eCCB may not include every one of these features in 
the first instance due to time constraints, the Office will continue to 
explore ways to make eCCB as functional and user-friendly as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters noted that the NPRM requests a claimant asserting a 
misrepresentation claim to identify the sender and recipient of the 
takedown notice and suggested that the claim form make clear that the 
sender and recipient fields were not intended to identify the online 
service provider.\55\ However, this appears to be a misreading of the 
NPRM. The Office intended for the claimant to identify the online 
service provider in these fields, as that is relevant information to 
describe the misrepresentation claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also addressed the proposed rule concerning additional 
matter that may accompany a claim. Some commenters believed that 
documentation in support of the claim should be required, noting that 
this would assist respondents in understanding the nature of the 
claim.\56\ The Office appreciates these comments but has determined 
that additional matter in support of a claim at this stage should 
remain optional. This approach avoids imposing an unnecessary burden on 
some claimants, particularly where a claim relates to works that are 
large, unwieldy, or sensitive. Furthermore, as even infringement claims 
can be very different from each other, it would be difficult to 
accurately tell a claimant exactly what to attach at the claim stage 
without addressing many potential topics. If a claimant does not 
provide sufficient information to place the respondent on notice as to 
the nature of the claim, a Copyright Claims Attorney will request that 
the claimant provide additional detail as part of the CCB's compliance 
review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ Fordham Initial NPRM Comments at 1-2; OTW Initial NPRM 
Comments at 7-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Organization for Transformative Works suggested 
that claims be required to prominently state whether the work at issue 
is registered, such as in boldface type or otherwise highlighted.\57\ 
While the claim will state whether the work at issue has been 
registered, and the Office understands that the registration status of 
a work may be relevant to respondents in determining whether to opt 
out, the Office does not think that emphasizing this information in the 
way that is suggested will meaningfully benefit a respondent who may 
not understand the consequences of registration status. Indeed, 
highlighting the fact that a work has not been registered may cause a 
respondent who is not familiar with the registration requirements 
before the CCB to conclude that the claim is deficient in some way and 
that they need not take it seriously. Instead, the Office intends to 
explain the consequences of a work's registration status in the CCB's 
educational materials, so that potential respondents can weigh this 
factor in making an informed decision as to whether to opt out or not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ OTW Initial NPRM Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Review of the Claim by Copyright Claims Attorneys

1. Compliance Review
    As noted in the NPRM, the statute describes the compliance review 
process in some detail and the Office proposed regulations to clarify 
the scope of the review.\58\ The Office received several comments on 
the compliance review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ 86 FR 53899.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters requested that Copyright Claims Attorneys check the 
libraries and archives opt-out list during the compliance review 
process to ensure that those entities that have opted out do not 
receive service documents from claimants.\59\ Although claimants are 
encouraged to check this list before filing, Copyright Claims Attorneys 
will also review the library and archives opt-out list as part of their 
compliance review. The Office does not believe that this requires a 
regulatory change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 24; LCA 
Initial NPRM Comments 1-2; Am. Ass'n of L. Libraries (``AALL'') 
Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office also received a comment concerning the compliance review 
of pro se claims as compared to those of represented claimants. In the 
NPRM, the Office stated that ``[t]he claimant will be asked to be as 
detailed as possible, but, as contemplated by Congress, the CCB will 
`construe liberally' any information in the claim to satisfy regulatory 
requirements during claim review.'' \60\ The Organization for 
Transformative Works noted that ``to construe liberally `any 
information' goes beyond Congress's intent'' and that the legislative 
history cited in the NPRM only instructs that pro se claims are to be 
construed liberally. It argued that to construe all claims liberally 
``would violate long-standing procedural principles and provide an 
unwarranted, unfair advantage to claimants.'' \61\ The Office 
acknowledges that the legislative history discussing liberal 
construction of claims related to pro se claims \62\ and agrees that 
only pro se claims will be construed liberally. Since the proposed 
regulatory text says nothing about liberal construction of pleadings, 
no change to the regulatory language is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 86 FR 53898 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 116-252 at 22).
    \61\ OTW Initial NPRM Comments at 11 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 116-
252, at 22).
    \62\ H.R. Rep. No. 116-252, at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Dismissal for Unsuitability
    The Office received comments about whether secondary liability 
claims should be permitted before the CCB. Some commenters asserted 
that ``secondary liability cases are generally too complicated for CCB 
resolution'' and ``should be categorically excluded.'' \63\ The 
Copyright Alliance et al. responded that ``[s]ince the law specifically 
permits claims of infringement, it would be inappropriate for the 
Copyright Office to categorically exclude claims of secondary liability 
which as much constitute claims of infringement as do claims of direct 
liability.'' \64\ The Office agrees that it is not appropriate to 
categorically exclude claims of infringement based upon particular 
theories of liability, and there is nothing in the statute that 
supports such exclusions. While certain claims involving secondary 
liability may be unsuitable, the CCB will determine suitability on a 
case-by-case basis. One of the proponents of a categorical ban 
suggested, in the alternative, that the Office make clear in the CCB 
Handbook that secondary liability cases are generally too complicated 
for CCB resolution.\65\ At this point, however, the Office does not 
believe it would be appropriate to make sweeping statements about any 
claim category's suitability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Amazon Initial Comments at 7; CCIA Initial Comments at 3.
    \64\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply Comments at 11-12.
    \65\ Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To provide additional clarity, the final rule adds specific 
procedures for a party to request dismissal of a claim or counterclaim 
for unsuitability. Similar to subject-matter jurisdiction issues in 
federal court, a party can submit a request, at any time, that the CCB 
find a claim unsuitable to be heard by the CCB, and the opposing party 
will have the opportunity to respond. The CCB

[[Page 16994]]

can also raise the issue of unsuitability at any point on its own.

D. Initial and Second Notices

    The NPRM set forth procedures governing the initial notice of 
proceeding that a claimant must serve on a respondent along with the 
claim, as well as the second notice of proceeding that the CCB will 
issue to respondents who have not opted out.\66\ Specifically, the 
proposed rule mandated that the initial notice describe the CCB, the 
nature of CCB proceedings, basic information about the claim(s) and 
claimant(s), the respondent's right to opt out, and the consequences of 
opting out or proceeding. In addition, the initial notice will explain 
how the respondent can find further information about copyright, the 
CCB, and how to access eCCB.\67\ Similarly, the proposed rule 
instructed that the second notice would mirror the initial notice in 
substance and would be sent no later than 20 days after the claimant 
files proof of service or a completed waiver of service (unless the 
respondent already has opted out).\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 86 FR 53899-53900, 53902.
    \67\ Id. at 53899-53900.
    \68\ Id. at 53902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters emphasized the importance of avoiding overly technical 
or formal language in the notices,\69\ and SFWA believed that the 
notices should do more to highlight the voluntary nature of the CCB and 
the respondent's ability to opt out.\70\ Some commenters suggested 
including a list of commonly available defenses in the notice.\71\ 
Other commenters were split on whether the notice should provide 
information on the differences between federal court litigation and CCB 
proceedings.\72\ The Copyright Alliance et al. did not think that the 
notices should provide information on how to register for eCCB, under 
the theory that such information may distract the respondent during the 
opt-out period.\73\ Two commenters suggested that the Office publish 
the language of the notices for public comment.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ SFWA Initial NPRM Comments at 2-3; Amazon Initial NPRM 
Comments at 4.
    \70\ SFWA Initial NPRM Comments at 2-3.
    \71\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2.
    \72\ Compare Fordham Initial NPRM Comments at 2; OTW Initial 
NPRM Comments at 6-7 with Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 
Comments at 13-14.
    \73\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 16-17.
    \74\ OTW Initial NPRM Comments at 6-7; SFWA Initial NPRM 
Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office agrees that the notices should use clear and simple 
language while still appearing legitimate and having the authority of a 
governmental body. As reflected in both the NPRM and the final rule, 
the Office intends to have both notices describe the respondent's 
ability to opt out. However, the Office believes that the notices 
should take an impartial approach, and should neither encourage nor 
discourage opt-out elections. The Office also wishes to avoid including 
unnecessary detail in the notices, which may discourage some 
respondents from reading them in full. Instead, in addition to 
providing the key information needed, the notices will refer 
respondents to additional sources of information, where they can learn 
more about available defenses and the differences between federal court 
litigation and CCB proceedings, among other topics. The Office 
understands the value of public input concerning the language of the 
notices. Once the notices are public, the Office welcomes feedback from 
potential CCB participants.
    The Copyright Alliance et al. suggested that the proposed rule be 
revised to make clear that the claim served with the initial notice 
must be the version that was found compliant by the Copyright Claims 
Attorney.\75\ Similarly, the Organization for Transformative Works 
believed that the regulatory language may create the erroneous 
implication that a party other than the CCB may send the second 
notice,\76\ while the Copyright Alliance et al. sought to clarify 
language in the preamble that incorrectly suggested that a respondent 
may file a response before the CCB serves the second notice.\77\ The 
Office agrees with these comments, and has revised the final rule in 
line with these suggestions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 17-18.
    \76\ OTW Initial NPRM Comments at 7.
    \77\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to suggestions that the Office do more to prevent 
abusive use of the CCB before a proceeding becomes active, the Office 
has included in the final rule a requirement that a claimant may not 
include with the service of the initial notice, claim, and related 
materials any additional substantive communications such as settlement 
demands, additional descriptions of the claim or the strength of the 
claim, or exhibits that were not filed as part of the claim. This rule 
is designed to prevent claimants from intimidating a respondent into 
participating in the proceeding or settling the claim, including by 
attempting to pass off their own materials as the CCB's. However, the 
rule should not prevent claimants and respondents from communicating 
during the opt-out period or engaging in good-faith settlement 
discussions. Such communications must occur separately from service of 
the initial notice, claim, and related materials to make clear to the 
respondent that they do not carry the CCB's imprimatur.
    The Office also has standardized the information in both the 
initial notice and the second notice, where appropriate. Further, the 
proposed rule contemplated that the claimant would submit a completed 
initial notice form simultaneously with the claim form, which a 
Copyright Claims Attorney would review as part of compliance review and 
issue with an Office seal upon approval.\78\ To make the process more 
streamlined and efficient, the CCB rather than the claimant will be 
responsible for creating the initial notice, which will be generated 
from the compliant claim. The final rule reflects this change. 
Similarly, the proposed rule's definition of ``initial notice'' 
erroneously suggested that initial notices would accompany 
counterclaims in addition to claims, as the Copyright Alliance et al. 
pointed out,\79\ and the service provisions incorrectly suggested that 
counterclaims would be served like claims. These references to 
counterclaims have been removed in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ 86 FR 53898.
    \79\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Service

1. Reorganization of Proposed Sec. Sec.  222.5 and 222.6
    In the NPRM, Sec. Sec.  222.5 (``Service; designated service 
agents'') and 222.6 (``Waiver of service'') addressed service of the 
initial notice of proceedings and other documents in CCB proceedings, 
including a provision permitting corporations, partnerships, and other 
unincorporated associations to designate agents to receive service of 
the initial notice and claim. To permit such entities to designate 
agents in advance of the day the CCB opens its doors, the provision 
regarding designations of service agents and the Office's directory of 
service agents has been broken out from this rulemaking and has already 
been published as a partial final rule.\80\ The provision regarding 
designated service agents has been moved to Sec.  222.6 (``Designated 
service agents'') and the provision regarding waiver of service has 
been moved into Sec.  222.5, which has been renamed ``Service; waiver 
of service; filing.'' Section 222.5 has been reorganized and some of 
the text has been revised to restate with

[[Page 16995]]

more clarity what was in the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ 87 FR 12861 (Mar. 8, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One such clarification relates to designated service agents. 
Various commenters observed that, as required by the statute, when a 
corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association has designated 
a service agent, a claimant must serve the initial notice and claim 
upon that agent. They requested that the regulations clarify that this 
is the case.\81\ The Office agrees with that interpretation of the 
statute,\82\ and did not believe a regulatory provision was necessary 
in light of the statutory language, so such a provision was not in the 
NPRM. However, in light of the comments about possible confusion, Sec.  
222.5(b)(2)(ii) now provides that when an entity has designated a 
service agent, service of the initial notice and claim must be made on 
that service agent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See, e.g., CCIA Initial NPRM Comments at 3; Copyright 
Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 19; MPA, RIAA & SIIA 
Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4.
    \82\ See 17 U.S.C. 1506(g)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Service of Order Regarding Second Filing Fee and Electronic Filing 
Registration
    As discussed below, to accommodate a two-tiered filing fee system, 
the final rule includes a new provision for an order, after a 
proceeding has become active for all respondents, requiring the 
claimant to pay the second fee and requiring all parties who have not 
yet registered for eCCB to do so. Section 222.5 has been revised to 
address the service of that order. Service of that order upon each 
party will depend upon whether that party has already registered for 
eCCB. The CCB will serve the order through eCCB for those parties who 
are already registered users. For parties who have not yet registered 
for eCCB, the order will be served in the same manner as the second 
notice--i.e., by mail and, if the CCB has an email address for the 
party, by email as well.
3. Revisions Regarding Filings and Service of Documents
    The final rule includes a few minor revisions, for purposes of 
efficiency and clarity, to the rules regarding service of documents 
subsequent to the service of the initial notice. The final rule also 
revises how an unrepresented individual can, in exceptional 
circumstances, use means other than eCCB for filings and the service of 
filings.
    As a general rule, parties will need to use eCCB for all filings 
and, once a proceeding has become active, a filing on eCCB will 
constitute service on all registered eCCB users linked to a case. The 
NPRM provided that unrepresented parties could avoid eCCB by certifying 
that they were unable to use eCCB or that doing so would cause an undue 
hardship. The NPRM then presented several alternative means of service 
of filings and documents, subsequent to the service of the initial 
notice, in proceedings involving a party not using eCCB. Given how 
burdensome this would be on all parties, and to maximize the number of 
parties using eCCB while still allowing for accessibility to CCB 
proceedings for those who are unable to use it, the final rule states 
that those unrepresented individuals who have exceptional circumstances 
preventing them from accessing eCCB should contact the CCB, so that 
alternate arrangements can be made. Determining the necessary 
modifications, if any, on a case-by-case basis will give the CCB the 
flexibility to formulate solutions based on the particular challenges 
of the parties.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Copyright Office regulations take a similar approach with 
respect to the online filing requirement for group registrations of 
unpublished works. See 37 CFR 202.4(c)(10) (``In an exceptional 
case, the Copyright Office may waive the online filing requirement . 
. . or may grant special relief from the deposit requirement . . . 
subject to such conditions as the Associate Register and Director of 
the Office of Registration Policy and Practice may impose on the 
applicant.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM would have required that service of the second notice, 
which is made by the CCB, be made by certified mail. The final rule has 
eliminated the requirement that the second notice be sent by certified 
mail, but it is likely that the Office will send such notices using 
some form of U.S. Postal Service tracking to confirm that they were 
actually delivered.
    There was contradictory language in the NPRM regarding service of 
requests for discovery and discovery responses. On one hand, the NPRM 
provided that ``discovery requests and responses must not be filed 
unless they are used in the proceeding, as needed, in relation to 
discovery disputes or submissions on the merits.'' \84\ On the other 
hand, it included ``[a] discovery document required to be served on a 
party'' among the documents that must be served ``in the manner 
prescribed in paragraph (d)(3),'' which stated that ``[a] document is 
served under this paragraph by sending it to a registered user by 
filing it with [eCCB] or sending it by other electronic means.'' \85\ 
However, it was not the Office's intent to require that discovery 
documents be filed with the CCB. The final rule has been clarified to 
provide that, unless the parties agree to another method of service, 
discovery requests and responses shall be served on other parties by 
email if the format and size of the documents makes such service 
reasonably possible. When such service is not reasonably possible 
(e.g., due to size or format issues), the parties should attempt to 
agree to other arrangements. In the absence of an agreement, such 
documents that cannot be served by email should be served by mail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ 86 FR 53909.
    \85\ Id. at 53908-09.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Waiver of Personal Service
    The CASE Act permits a respondent to waive personal service of 
process--i.e., to agree in writing that the claimant need not go 
through the formal procedures for service of the claim and initial 
notice. A claimant may send a request for a waiver of personal service, 
along with the initial notice and the other documents to be served with 
that notice, to the respondent by mail or other reasonable means. The 
respondent may return the signed waiver to the claimant, which 
constitutes acceptance and proof of service.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(g)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Engine expressed concern that when sending requests for waivers of 
service to respondents, some claimants might use misleading or 
intimidating language, similar to concerns expressed by other 
commenters relating to service of the initial notice and claim. Engine 
suggested that each claimant be required to send to the CCB a copy of 
everything that was included in the waiver package that the claimant 
sends to a respondent.\87\ Such a requirement would impose 
administrative burdens on the CCB staff and go well beyond requirements 
for cases in federal court. The Office believes that a more efficient 
solution would be to take the same approach that has been taken with 
respect to service, and the final rule provides that the request for 
waiver of personal service shall be prepared using a form prepared by 
the CCB and shall not be accompanied by any other substantive 
communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule includes additional minor revisions regarding 
waivers of service. The NPRM had proposed that a waiver shall contain 
the respondent's email address and telephone number. However, 
consistent with revisions made to provisions governing the claim, the 
initial notice, and the response to the claim, the final rule provides 
when a respondent is represented, the waiver returned by a respondent 
should include the email address and telephone number not of the 
respondent, but rather of the respondent's counsel or

[[Page 16996]]

authorized representative. Similarly, the final rule now provides that 
in cases where the respondent is represented, the waiver may be signed 
by the respondent's counsel or authorized representative.
    In the NPRM, the Office proposed a rule that the proof of service 
must be filed within seven days of service, noting that the CCB will 
issue the second notice to the respondent no later than twenty days 
after receipt of a proof of service filed by the claimant.\88\ The 
seven-day deadline was imposed so that the CCB would receive prompt 
notice that the initial notice had been served and could issue the 
second notice to the respondent within the following twenty days. 
Because one purpose of the second notice is to remind the respondent of 
its opt-out choice, it is vital that the second notice be served well 
before the expiration of the opt-out period, which is 60 days following 
service of the initial notice.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ 86 FR 53902, 53907.
    \89\ See 17 U.S.C. 1506(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CASE Act provides only that proof of service of the initial 
notice must be filed not later than 90 days after the CCB notifies the 
claimant to proceed with service.\90\ That provision continues to serve 
as an ultimate deadline for the filing of proof of service. However, to 
ensure that the second notice is delivered to the respondent well in 
advance of the expiration of the opt-out period, the CCB needs to 
receive the proof of service soon after service takes place and well in 
advance of the opt-out date. Otherwise, the entire opt-out period could 
pass before the CCB is notified that service has been completed and the 
second notice would not meaningfully inform the respondent regarding 
its opt-out options. In the final rule, the Office has clarified that 
the seven-day deadline to advise the CCB regarding service on 
respondent applies to the filing of both proof of service and waiver of 
service, as applicable. As noted in the regulations, the consequence of 
a claimant failing to file its proof of service or waiver of service 
within the seven-day deadline is a possible extension of the 
respondent's opt-out deadline, depending on the circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Id. at 1506(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Other Matters
    One comment urged that the Office provide claimants with clear, 
simple, plain-English instructions for effecting valid service, 
including a requirement that claimants search the online database of 
service agents and step-by-step instructions on how to serve such 
agents.\91\ The Office intends to provide such information and 
instruction in other materials made available to the public, including 
the CCB Handbook.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ MPA, RIAA & SIIA Initial NPRM Comments at 4.
    \92\ See 86 FR 69904 (proposed Sec.  220.3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule for 
documents served electronically states, ``service is complete upon 
filing or sending, respectively, but is not effective if the filer or 
sender learns that it did not reach the person to be served.'' \93\ The 
commenters observed that it is unclear what ``learns'' means and the 
uncertainty could enable intended recipients to make unsubstantiated 
claims that they did not receive documents that had been transmitted to 
them.\94\ They proposed that the language be revised to include a 
proviso that the intended recipient must timely notify the sender that 
the document was not received.\95\ The Office notes that the language 
in question is taken almost verbatim from Rule 5(b)(2)(E) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\96\ The Federal Rule has no 
requirement that the intended recipient must notify the sender that the 
document was not received, and it is evident that unless a party was 
expecting to receive a particular document at a particular time, the 
intended recipient would have no way of knowing that the other party 
had attempted, but failed to accomplish, delivery of the document. The 
Office sees no reason to depart from the rule that has long worked for 
the federal courts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 19 
(citing 86 FR 53908-09 (proposed Sec.  222.5(d)(3)(ii))).
    \94\ See id.
    \95\ See id. at 19-20.
    \96\ Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E) (``A paper is served under this 
rule by . . . sending it to a registered user by filing it with the 
court's electronic-filing system or sending it by other electronic 
means that the person consented to in writing--in either of which 
events service is complete upon filing or sending, but is not 
effective if the filer or sender learns that it did not reach the 
person to be served.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office has extended the provision that service is not effective 
if the sender learns that it did not reach the party to be served to 
cover service by mail as well as email. There does not appear to be any 
basis for treating these methods separately because the purpose of the 
provision is to recognize that service is not effective when it was not 
completed. Further, if the sender of the material has actual notice 
that service was not completed, such as if it is returned from the U.S. 
Post Office because it was not delivered, the sender should have the 
same responsibility to make sure it is correctly served as with service 
by email.
    Professor Eric Goldman acknowledged that the statutory provisions 
and proposed rule ``incorporate[ ] existing service rules that apply to 
judicial proceedings,'' but argued that the CCB should go further and 
``rigorously scrutinize service'' and should ``validate that the right 
defendant was identified and that service was made to that person.'' 
\97\ While implicitly acknowledging that this was not an issue created 
by or peculiar to the CCB (Professor Goldman noted that ``service rules 
can be gamed in non-CCB contexts''), he suggested that the CCB should 
``invest some resources in identifying--and punishing--service abuse.'' 
\98\ The Copyright Alliance et al. responded by noting that the 
possibility of misidentifying a defendant or a defendant's address ``is 
a possibility that also exists in federal court, and it is unreasonable 
to expect that the CCB could somehow ensure that the claimant does not 
misidentify the respondent or the respondent's address.'' \99\ The 
Office agrees that the CCB cannot act as a guarantor that a claimant 
has served process on the correct respondent at the correct address, 
which is an issue that faces all tribunals regardless of size or 
jurisdiction. Moreover, the Office notes that the CCB has additional 
notices and safeguards against defaults that potentially reduce the 
effects of service abuse or mistake.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Eric Goldman Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
    \98\ Eric Goldman Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
    \99\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Opt-Out Procedures

    The NPRM also set forth the procedures a respondent must follow to 
opt out of a proceeding. Under the proposed rule, a respondent may opt 
out by using either a paper or electronic form that requires provision 
of the docket number for the claim, a verification code, certain 
identifying information, and a signed affirmation.\100\ The proposed 
rule required that each respondent independently fill out the opt-out 
form. It also specified that an opt-out would be effective against 
duplicate claims, but not unrelated claims between the same 
parties.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ 86 FR 53902.
    \101\ Id. at 53902-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters emphasized the importance of making the opt-out process 
simple and accessible.\102\ CCIA questioned whether it was necessary to

[[Page 16997]]

require respondents using the electronic opt-out form to include a 
verification code when this code was not required for respondents using 
the paper form,\103\ while others supported the use of the code as a 
security measure.\104\ The Office believes that the verification code 
imposes a minimal burden while adding a necessary protective measure to 
ensure that only the respondent is able to opt out. The Office also 
agrees that electronic and paper opt-out forms should not be treated 
differently in this respect and has modified the rule to require the 
verification code, which will be provided along with the initial and 
second notices, for paper opt-out forms as well. The Office notes that 
eCCB is set up to make opting out easy, and its use is highly 
encouraged. Respondents will be able to find the appropriate claim on 
eCCB, identify themselves, and enter the opt-out code without needing 
to register. They will then be sent a confirmation for their records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 4; CCIA Initial NPRM 
Comments at 4-5.
    \103\ CCIA Initial NPRM Comments at 4-5.
    \104\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM requested comments on whether the rule should give 
respondents the ability to rescind an opt-out.\105\ Commenters 
generally opposed such a provision, arguing that the Office lacked 
statutory authority to permit the rescission of opt-outs,\106\ that 
claimants could use the availability of this mechanism to harass 
respondents,\107\ that such a mechanism would impose an administrative 
burden on the CCB,\108\ and that rescission may go against a claimant's 
wishes or raise constitutional concerns where a federal court's 
jurisdiction has been invoked.\109\ Commenters suggested that if such a 
mechanism was introduced, the decision to rescind an opt-out should be 
accompanied by conditions, such as a requiring the claimant's 
consent,\110\ the reimbursement of the claimant's filing fee,\111\ or 
other financial penalties.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ 86 FR 53903.
    \106\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 19-20.
    \107\ Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 3.
    \108\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2.
    \109\ Id.
    \110\ Id.
    \111\ Fordham Initial NPRM Comments at 3.
    \112\ Lisa Corson Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of these comments, the Office has decided not 
to allow the rescission of opt-outs by respondents, which would result 
in the unilateral reinitiation of a CCB proceeding. At the same time, 
the Office expects that there will be scenarios where, after opting 
out, respondents change their minds and determine that they would 
prefer to proceed before the CCB. In those circumstances, the 
respondent could contact the claimant with an offer to submit the 
parties' dispute to the CCB. The claimant would have a choice of 
whether to accept the offer. Accordingly, the Office is modifying the 
proposed rule to permit the same claim to be refiled following an opt-
out where both parties have consented to the refiling.
    In the NPRM, the Office proposed a rule intended to prevent a 
claimant from refiling a claim against a respondent who has already 
opted out with respect to that claim. Recognizing that such a rule 
should apply not only to verbatim repetitions of the previous claim but 
also to restatements of the same claim with different language, the 
Office proposed a rule that would protect a respondent who has opted 
out against a future claim ``covering the same acts and the same 
theories of recovery.'' \113\ Commenters raised concerns with the 
standard proposed in the NPRM. One comment suggested that the proposed 
rule adopted the wrong standard and that the correct standard is found 
in the statutory text relating to allowable counterclaims.\114\ 
However, this rule is intended to address the repeated filing of a 
claim against a respondent that has previously opted out, not the scope 
of permissible counterclaims, which the statute limits to ensure that 
the CCB operates ``efficiently and within the scope of its expertise.'' 
\115\ Another comment sought clarification as to how the rule would be 
applied in particular factual scenarios.\116\ The Office understands 
that such examples may be helpful and expects to offer some in the 
Handbook. After considering the comments, the language in the final 
rule has been modified to make clear that the prohibition on refiled 
claims extends not only to identical or verbatim claims previously 
filed by the claimant from which the respondent has already opted out, 
but also to claims involving the same parties that cover the same acts 
and theories of recovery in substance, notwithstanding minor 
variations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ 86 FR 53902-03, 53912.
    \114\ MPA, RIAA & SIIA Initial NPRM Comments at 8-9 (citing 17 
U.S.C. 1504(c)(4)(B)) (The comment suggested a rule focusing on 
whether the claim arises out of the same transaction or occurrence 
that is the subject matter of the original claim.).
    \115\ See Copyright Small Claims at 105.
    \116\ SFWA Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office received divided comments on whether and in what 
circumstances a respondent may seek an extension of the opt-out period. 
The Organization for Transformative Works suggested that respondents be 
permitted to extend the opt-out period when they need additional 
information to understand the nature of the claim or more time to seek 
the assistance of counsel,\117\ while other commenters disagreed, 
arguing that this would result in delays in CCB proceedings, which are 
intended to be efficient.\118\ The Office recognizes that there may be 
limited situations where a respondent needs more than 60 days to 
evaluate a more complex claim or to seek counsel, and the claimant may 
prefer that the opt-out period be extended rather than the respondent 
immediately opting out. The Office notes, however, that the statute 
gives the CCB the authority to extend the opt-out period in exceptional 
circumstances and upon written notice to the claimant when the 
extension is in the interests of justice.\119\ The Office has made this 
explicit in the final rule and has included a provision stating that 
requests for an extension of the opt-out period may be made by the 
respondent individually or the parties jointly. The CCB Handbook will 
encourage respondents to seek the claimant's consent, as joint requests 
to extend the opt-out period can be more easily granted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ OTW Initial NPRM Comments at 9, 11.
    \118\ Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 18-19.
    \119\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also urged the Office to consider publishing a list of 
respondents who have opted out, arguing that doing so would be helpful 
to potential claimants' decision-making process.\120\ The Office is not 
creating such a list at this time, but will consider doing so in the 
future without the need for a regulation. The Office notes that this 
list would only be helpful if it includes a denominator representing 
the total number of claims filed against a particular respondent and 
not merely a numerator representing the number of times that the 
respondent has opted out. The Office further notes that eCCB will in 
any event contain information about claimants and respondents and will 
be public and searchable by parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 23; 
Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Verizon suggested that the rule make clear that the 
opt-outs of respondents who were not properly served be treated as 
effective.\121\ The Office agrees and has included such a provision in 
the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office has also made additional procedural changes to 
streamline the opt-out process. First, the final rule permits a 
respondent's representative to complete the opt-out form, provided that 
they certify that they were directed and authorized by the respondent 
to do

[[Page 16998]]

so. The Office has included this provision to enable represented 
respondents to opt out more easily, especially those who cannot 
themselves use eCCB but have an attorney who can. The Office does not 
believe there is a compelling reason to allow a party to be represented 
for other aspects of a CCB proceeding, but not the opt out, and this 
rule makes sense for the same reasons that the CCB will allow 
authorized representatives for the claimant to prepare and certify the 
claim. Respondents will still have to provide their representatives 
with the proper opt-out code to enable the representative to opt out on 
their behalf. Second, the final rule requires a respondent to include 
certain contact information on opt-out forms so that the CCB may send 
the respondent or its representative confirmation of the opt-out. When 
opting out electronically, the respondent must include an email 
address. When opting out using a paper form, the respondent must 
provide either an email address or a mailing address. Third, the final 
rule makes clear that electronic opt-out forms must be submitted by 
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the final day of the opt-out period, rather 
than at midnight.

G. Order Regarding Second Filing Fee and Electronic Filing Registration

    As discussed above, the addition of a two-tiered fee system in the 
final rule required additional processes concerning payment of the 
second fee. Under the final rule, once a proceeding becomes active 
(i.e., all respondents have been served and the time to opt-out for 
each respondent has expired without all of them opting out), the CCB 
will issue an order to all parties requiring that the claimant pay the 
second filing fee within 14 days and that any parties who have not yet 
registered for the eCCB do so (unless they are a pro se individual and 
have contacted the CCB and the CCB has determined that exceptional 
circumstances exist such that the party does not have to use eCCB) 
within 14 days. After the claimant pays the second filing fee and the 
14-day period elapses, the CCB will issue a scheduling order. If any 
party has not yet registered for eCCB by that time, the CCB will serve 
that party with the scheduling order outside of eCCB, along with a 
notice reminding the party to register for eCCB or contact the CCB if 
they are unable to use it. The notice will also state that a failure to 
comply may ultimately result in a determination of the party's default 
or failure to prosecute. Under the final rule, if a claimant fails to 
submit the second payment within the 14-day period, the CCB will issue 
a notice to that claimant, reminding them to submit the second payment 
within the next 14 days. If the claimant still fails to submit the 
second payment, the CCB will dismiss the proceeding without prejudice, 
unless doing so would not be in the interests of justice.

H. Response

    In the NPRM, the Office proposed procedures for the respondent to 
file a response to a claim.\122\ As with the claim, responses generally 
must be filed using an electronic fillable form provided through 
eCCB.\123\ In the response, the respondent will provide identifying 
information and details concerning the dispute, along with a 
certification that the information provided in the response is accurate 
and truthful to the best of the certifying party's knowledge.\124\ 
Under the proposed rule, respondents to infringement claims were 
permitted to identify relevant defenses, and given the opportunity to 
attach documentation related to their response.\125\ However, the 
proposed rule did not provide for identification of defenses to claims 
of misrepresentation or for declarations of noninfringement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ 86 FR 53909.
    \123\ Id. at 53903.
    \124\ Id. at 53910.
    \125\ Id. at 53903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office requested comments concerning whether a list of common 
defenses should be provided to respondents and, if so, how such a list 
should be provided.\126\ Commenters generally favored including a list 
of common defenses,\127\ but they were divided on how and what details 
should be provided. Engine favored presenting defenses in the form of a 
checklist,\128\ but others believed that this may encourage respondents 
to raise frivolous or baseless defenses and favored presenting relevant 
defenses in the form of a list without additional detail.\129\ Other 
commenters agreed that the Office should present a list of common 
defenses for each type of claim, but should make clear that the 
applicability of defenses will depend on the facts at issue.\130\ 
Finally, two commenters agreed that the Office should provide a list of 
common defenses, but thought that each defense should be accompanied by 
a brief explanation along with links to resources.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Id.
    \127\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 20-21; 
Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 4; MPA, RIAA & SIIA Initial NPRM 
Comments at 10; Fordham Initial Comments at 3-4. But see Lisa Corson 
Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
    \128\ Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 4.
    \129\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 20-21; 
Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 15.
    \130\ MPA, RIAA & SIIA Initial NPRM Comments at 10.
    \131\ Fordham Initial NPRM Comments at 3-4; Anonymous Reply NPRM 
Comments at 4-5;.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a preliminary matter, the Office agrees that respondents for 
each type of claim--rather than only infringement claims--should be 
permitted an opportunity to present defenses beyond just disputing the 
claim, and it has revised the final rule accordingly. Additionally, the 
Office intends to include a list of common defenses in the response 
form. These defenses generally will take the form of a checklist, but 
respondents will be required to provide the basis for each defense they 
select as part of the response form. This will minimize the burden on 
respondents, who may not have much familiarity with the law, while 
discouraging the assertion of meritless defenses. The Office also 
intends to include additional information concerning common defenses as 
part of the CCB's educational materials and to have links within eCCB 
so that respondents can easily access those materials.
    Commenters also suggested that the response form alert respondents 
to the availability of pro bono assistance from legal clinics and how 
to contact them.\132\ The Office intends to include references to pro 
bono assistance in the initial notice and throughout the CCB's 
educational materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the final rule also requires a respondent to 
provide an address, phone number, email address, and, if represented by 
counsel or an authorized representative, the address, phone number, and 
email address of the counsel or representative. Where a respondent is 
represented, the respondent's phone number and email address will not 
be made available to the opposing party, but only to CCB staff. 
Additionally, as is the case with the claim form, when the response is 
completed by someone other than the respondent, the final rule requires 
that the certifying party has confirmed the accuracy of the information 
with the respondent.

I. Counterclaims and Response to Counterclaims

    The CASE Act provides that a respondent in a CCB proceeding may 
assert certain related counterclaims against the claimant.\133\ An 
allowable counterclaim must either ``arise[ ] under

[[Page 16999]]

section 106 or section 512(f) [of the Copyright Act] and out of the 
same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of a claim of 
infringement, . . . a claim of noninfringement, . . . or a claim of 
misrepresentation,'' \134\ or ``arise [ ] under an agreement pertaining 
to the same transaction or occurrence that is the subject of a claim of 
infringement . . . if the agreement could affect the relief awarded to 
the claimant.'' \135\ Counterclaims must also fall within the same 
limits on damages that apply to claims.\136\ Any asserted counterclaim 
is subject to the same compliance review applicable to an initial claim 
\137\ and is subject to dismissal for unsuitability.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ 17 U.S.C. 1504(c).
    \134\ Id. at 1504(c)(4)(B)(i).
    \135\ Id. at 1504(c)(4)(B)(ii).
    \136\ Id. at 1504(c)(4)(A), 1504(e)(1).
    \137\ Id. at 1506(f)(2).
    \138\ Id. at 1506(f)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. No Opting Out of Counterclaims
    Though the CASE Act provides a detailed procedure for respondents 
to opt out of using the CCB to resolve claims,\139\ it does not set 
forth a corresponding opt-out procedure for counterclaims.\140\ Under 
the statute, a claimant can elect to voluntarily dismiss a claim, 
respondent, or proceeding by written request at any time ``before a 
respondent files a response to the claim,'' \141\ but once a response 
with any counterclaim is filed, the statute does not provide a means 
for the claimant to withdraw from, or opt out of, having the CCB decide 
the counterclaim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ Id. at 1506(i).
    \140\ See 86 FR 53904.
    \141\ 17 U.S.C. 1506(q)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, the Office invited comments on the issue, including 
whether allowing a claimant to opt out of having the CCB decide a 
counterclaim is permitted under the statute.\142\ As the Office 
previously observed, ``[a]s the claimant has already voluntarily 
submitted to, and in fact requested, the CCB to take up the general 
issue at hand, having an opt-out procedure for counterclaims 
potentially could constitute an inefficient use of time and 
resources.'' \143\ The Office also noted that, as the CASE Act permits 
only counterclaims that both arise from the same transaction or 
occurrence as a claim and that implicate copyright or an agreement 
affecting the relief to be awarded to the claimant, ``there arguably 
should be no surprise when a counterclaim is asserted. For example, a 
claimant who brings an action before the CCB seeking a declaration of 
noninfringement of a work could reasonably expect a counterclaim for 
infringement of that same work.'' \144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ 86 FR 53904.
    \143\ Id.
    \144\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters were generally in agreement with the proposed rule. 
Several commenters opposed any provision that would allow claimants to 
opt out of counterclaims raised against them.\145\ Some questioned the 
legality of such a provision.\146\ Commenters raised equitable concerns 
that ``no party should be able to pursue a claim in CCB while 
simultaneously opting out of litigating a counterclaim against it'' 
\147\ and that once a claimant voluntarily elects to bring a claim, 
``they elect to either proceed before the CCB or not to; they do not 
get to pick and choose which eligible [counter]claims they would like 
to be subject to before the CCB.'' \148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2; Copyright Alliance et 
al. Initial NPRM Comments at 21-22.
    \146\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2; Copyright Alliance et 
al. Initial NPRM Comments at 21-22.
    \147\ MPA, RIAA & SIIA Initial NPRM Comments at 8.
    \148\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 22. 
This comment further suggested that the claim form should 
prominently inform claimants ``that by bringing a claim before the 
CCB, they voluntarily consent to the process, including any 
counterclaims permitted[.]'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most of the comments that addressed the issue opined that, even if 
permissible, ``an opt-out mechanism . . . for claimants who receive a 
counterclaim . . . would [not] be sound policy.'' \149\ One commenting 
party concurred that a claimant should not be entitled to opt out of a 
counterclaim ``unless that original claimant drops its claim, thus 
resulting in dismissal of the entire CCB case.'' \150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2.
    \150\ MPA, RIAA & SIIA Initial NPRM Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters expressed the opposing view.\151\ An authors' 
organization commented that not allowing a claimant to opt-out of 
counterclaims would make ``claimants unfairly bear[ ] the burden of 
paying the filing fee, initiating the process, and assuming the risk of 
being subjected to a counterclaim,'' and give respondents ``a distinct 
advantage by being able to force the case through the CCB process.'' 
\152\ Another anonymous commenter raised similar concerns that this 
would impose an unbalanced burden on claimants and that respondents may 
``attempt to find a way to abuse free counterclaims.'' \153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ See Anonymous Reply NPRM Comments at 2; SFWA Initial NPRM 
Comments at 4.
    \152\ SFWA Initial NPRM Comments at 4.
    \153\ Anonymous Reply NPRM Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Office agrees with the majority of comments that a claimant 
should not be entitled to opt out of a counterclaim. The NPRM expressed 
doubt that the CASE Act permits a counterclaim respondent to opt out, 
and no commenters made an argument that it does. Moreover, a 
respondent's right to opt out of a CCB claim is inherent in the 
voluntary nature of the forum, but a claimant before the CCB has 
already affirmatively opted in to the proceeding and could reasonably 
anticipate a respondent to file a counterclaim. Any claimant, knowing 
that the respondent may opt out of the proceeding or make a 
counterclaim, can assess those risks before filing the claim. But if a 
claimant facing a counterclaim could opt out of that counterclaim while 
maintaining their own claim, this would be unfair to respondents. The 
Office is persuaded that it would be inequitable and inefficient to 
permit a claimant to opt out of a counterclaim, even if such a 
regulation were permitted.
2. Other Provisions Related to Counterclaims
    The CASE Act does not specify when a counterclaim must be filed. 
Under the proposed rule, a counterclaim must be asserted at the same 
time the response is filed unless the CCB finds good cause for allowing 
a later counterclaim.\154\ The only comments on this topic ``agree[d] 
with this approach.'' \155\ The Office finds that this approach will 
enable ``an efficient, orderly procedure that provides parties 
sufficient notice as to the issues involved in the proceeding.'' \156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ 86 FR 53903.
    \155\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 21.
    \156\ 86 FR 53903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPRM proposed that ``the information required to assert a 
counterclaim should closely mirror the information required to assert a 
claim.'' \157\ However, commenters noted a discrepancy between those 
requirements--while claimants would have been required to state ``[t]he 
facts leading the claimant to believe the work has been infringed,'' 
counterclaimants would have been required to state ``[t]he nature of 
the alleged infringement.'' \158\ The Copyright Alliance et al. 
suggested revising the latter provision to be consistent with the 
former.\159\ The Office agrees and adopts the suggestion in the 
interest of consistency. The Office does not intend that the pleading 
standards and requirements for

[[Page 17000]]

claimants and counterclaimants should differ, and accordingly, the 
Office has further revised the wording proposed in the NPRM regarding 
the content of counterclaims to conform it to the wording regarding the 
content of claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ Id.
    \158\ Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments at 21 
(citing 86 FR 53903, 53910).
    \159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Clarifying Language and Technical Corrections

    Commenters provided suggestions on clarifying language and 
correcting typographical errors in the NPRM. The Office has adjusted 
the final rule accordingly.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See, e.g., Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 
at 14-15, 17, 20-21; New Media Rights Initial NPRM Comments at 5-6; 
OTW Initial NPRM Comments at 11; SFWA Initial NPRM Comments at 2; 
Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Subjects

37 CFR Part 201

    Copyright, General provisions.

37 CFR Part 220

    Claims, Copyright, General.

37 CFR Part 222

    Claims, Copyright.

37 CFR Part 223

    Claims, Copyright.

37 CFR Part 224

    Claims, Copyright.

Final Regulations

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the U.S. Copyright Office 
amends chapter II, subchapters A and B, of title 37 Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

Subchapter A--Copyright Office and Procedures

PART 201--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 201 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702.
    Section 201.10 also issued under 17 U.S.C. 304.


0
2. In Sec.  201.3:
0
a. Revise the section heading;
0
b. Redesignate table 1 to paragraph (d) and table 1 to paragraph (e) as 
table 2 to paragraph (d) and table 3 to paragraph (e), respectively; 
and
0
c. Add paragraph (g).

    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  201.3.  Fees for registration, recordation, and related services, 
special services, and services performed by the Licensing Section and 
the Copyright Claims Board.

* * * * *

    (g) Copyright Claims Board fees. The Copyright Office has 
established the following fees for specific services related to the 
Copyright Claims Board:

                        Table 4 to Paragraph (g)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fees
                  Copyright claims board fees                      ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Initiate a proceeding before the Copyright Claims Board.     .......
    (i) First payment..........................................       40
    (ii) Second payment........................................       60
(2) [Reserved].................................................  .......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subchapter B--Copyright Claims Board and Procedures

0
3. Under the authority of 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510, the heading for 
subchapter B is revised to read as set forth above.

0
4. Add part 220 to read as follows:

PART 220--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec.
220.1 Definitions.
220.2 [Reserved]

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.


Sec.  220.1  Definitions.

    For purposes of this subchapter:
    (a) An authorized representative is a person, other than legal 
counsel, who is authorized under this subchapter to represent a party 
before the Copyright Claims Board (Board).
    (b) An initial notice means the notice described in 17 U.S.C. 
1506(g) that is served on a respondent in a Board proceeding along with 
the claim.
    (c) A second notice means the notice of a proceeding sent by the 
Board as described in 17 U.S.C. 1506(h).


Sec.  220.2  [Reserved]

PART 222--PROCEEDINGS

0
5. The authority citation for part 222 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.


0
6. Add Sec. Sec.  222.2 through 222.5 to read as follows:
Sec.
* * * * *
222.2 Initiating a proceeding; the claim.
222.3 Initial notice.
222.4 Second notice.
222.5 Service; waiver of service; filing.
* * * * *


Sec.  222.2  Initiating a proceeding; the claim.

    (a) Initiating a proceeding. A claimant may initiate a proceeding 
before the Copyright Claims Board (Board) by submitting the following--
    (1) A completed claim form provided by the Board; and
    (2) The first payment of the filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 
201.3(g).
    (b) Electronic filing requirement. Except as provided otherwise in 
Sec.  222.5(f), to submit the claim and the first payment of the filing 
fee, the claimant must be a registered user of the Board's electronic 
filing system (eCCB).
    (c) Contents of the claim. The claim shall include:
    (1) Identification of the claim(s) asserted against the 
respondent(s), which shall consist of at least one of the following:
    (i) A claim for infringement of an exclusive right in a copyrighted 
work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106;
    (ii) A claim for a declaration of noninfringement of an exclusive 
right in a copyrighted work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106; or
    (iii) A claim under 17 U.S.C. 512(f) for misrepresentation in 
connection with--
    (A) A notification of claimed infringement; or
    (B) A counter notification seeking to replace removed or disabled 
material;
    (2) The name(s) and mailing address(es) of the claimant(s);
    (3) For any claimant that is represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, the name(s), mailing address(es), email 
address(es), and telephone number(s) of such claimant's legal counsel 
or authorized representative;
    (4) For any claimant that is not represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, the email address and telephone number of 
such claimant;
    (5) The name(s) of the respondent(s);
    (6) The mailing address(es) of the respondent(s), unless the 
claimant(s) certifies that a respondent's address is unknown at the 
time to the claimant and that the claimant has a good-faith belief that 
the statute of limitations for the claim is likely to expire within 30 
days from the date that the claim is submitted, and describes the basis 
for that good-faith belief;
    (7) For an infringement claim asserted under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of 
this section--
    (i) That the claimant is the legal or beneficial owner of rights in 
a work protected by copyright and, if there are any co-owners, their 
names;
    (ii) The following information for each work at issue in the claim:
    (A) The title of the work;
    (B) The author(s) of the work;
    (C) If a copyright registration has issued for the work, the 
registration number and effective date of registration;
    (D) If an application for copyright registration has been submitted 
but a registration has not yet issued, the service request number (SR 
number) and application date; and
    (E) The work of authorship category, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 102, 
for each

[[Page 17001]]

work at issue, or, if the claimant is unable to determine the 
applicable category, a brief description of the nature of the work; and
    (iii) A description of the facts relating to the alleged 
infringement, including, to the extent known to the claimant:
    (A) Which exclusive rights provided under 17 U.S.C. 106 are at 
issue;
    (B) When the alleged infringement began;
    (C) The name(s) of all person(s) or organization(s) alleged to have 
participated in the infringing activity;
    (D) The facts leading the claimant to believe the work has been 
infringed;
    (E) Whether the alleged infringement has continued through the date 
the claim was filed, or, if it has not, when the alleged infringement 
ceased;
    (F) Where the alleged act(s) of infringement occurred (e.g., a 
physical or online location); and
    (G) If the claim of infringement is asserted against an online 
service provider as defined in 17 U.S.C. 512(k)(1)(B) for infringement 
by reason of the storage of or referral or linking to infringing 
material that may be subject to the limitations on liability set forth 
in 17 U.S.C. 512(b), (c), or (d), an affirmance that the claimant has 
previously notified the service provider of the claimed infringement in 
accordance with 17 U.S.C. 512(b)(2)(E), (c)(3), or (d)(3), as 
applicable, and that the service provider failed to remove or disable 
access to the material expeditiously upon the provision of such notice;
    (8) For a declaration of noninfringement claim asserted under 
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section--
    (i) The name(s) of the person(s) or organization(s) asserting that 
the claimant has infringed a copyright;
    (ii) The following information for each work alleged to have been 
infringed, if that information is known to the claimant:
    (A) The title;
    (B) If a copyright registration has issued for the work, the 
registration number and effective date of registration;
    (C) If an application for copyright has been submitted, but a 
registration has not yet issued, the service request number (SR number) 
and registration application date; and
    (D) The work of authorship category, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 102, 
or, if the claimant is unable to determine which category is 
applicable, a brief description of the nature of the work;
    (iii) A brief description of the claimant's activity at issue in 
the claim, including, to the extent known to the claimant:
    (A) Any exclusive rights provided under 17 U.S.C. 106 that may be 
implicated;
    (B) When the activities at issue began and, if applicable, ended;
    (C) Whether the activities at issue have continued through the date 
the claim was filed;
    (D) The name(s) of all person(s) or organization(s) who 
participated in the allegedly infringing activity; and
    (E) Where the activities at issue occurred (e.g., a physical or 
online location);
    (iv) A brief statement describing the reasons why the claimant 
believes that no infringement occurred, including any relevant history 
or agreements between the parties and whether claimant currently 
believes any exceptions and limitations as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 107 
through 122 are implicated; and
    (v) A brief statement describing the reasons why the claimant 
believes that there is an actual controversy concerning the requested 
declaration;
    (9) For a misrepresentation claim asserted under paragraph 
(c)(1)(iii) of this section--
    (i) The sender of the notification of claimed infringement;
    (ii) The recipient of the notification of claimed infringement;
    (iii) The date the notification of claimed infringement was sent, 
if known;
    (iv) A description of the notification;
    (v) If a counter notification was sent in response to the 
notification--
    (A) The sender of the counter notification;
    (B) The recipient of the counter notification;
    (C) The date the counter notification was sent, if known; and
    (D) A description of the counter notification;
    (vi) The words in the notification or counter notification that 
allegedly constituted a misrepresentation; and
    (vii) An explanation of the alleged misrepresentation;
    (10) For infringement claims and misrepresentation claims, a 
statement describing the harm suffered by the claimant(s) as a result 
of the alleged activity and the relief sought by the claimant(s). Such 
statement may, but is not required to, include an estimate of any 
monetary relief sought;
    (11) Whether the claimant requests that the proceeding be conducted 
as a ``smaller claim'' under 17 U.S.C. 1506(z), and would accept a 
limitation on total damages of $5,000 if the request is granted; and
    (12) A certification under penalty of perjury by the claimant, the 
claimant's legal counsel, or the claimant's authorized representative 
that the information provided in the claim is accurate and truthful to 
the best of the certifying person's knowledge and, if the certifying 
person is not the claimant, that the certifying person has confirmed 
the accuracy of the information with the claimant. The certification 
shall include the typed signature of the certifying person.
    (d) Additional matter. The claimant may also include, as 
attachments to or files accompanying the claim, any material the 
claimant believes plays a significant role in setting forth the facts 
of the claim, such as:
    (1) A copy of the copyright registration certificate for a work 
that is the subject of the proceeding;
    (2) A copy of the copyrighted work alleged to be infringed. This 
copy may also be accompanied by additional information, such as a 
hyperlink or screenshot, that shows where the allegedly infringed work 
has been posted;
    (3) A copy of the allegedly infringing material. This copy may also 
be accompanied by additional information, such as a hyperlink or 
screenshot, that shows any allegedly infringing activity;
    (4) For a misrepresentation claim, a copy of the notification of 
claimed infringement that is alleged to contain the misrepresentation;
    (5) For a misrepresentation claim, a copy of the counter 
notification that is alleged to contain the misrepresentation;
    (6) For a declaration of noninfringement claim, a copy of the 
demand letter(s) or other correspondence that created the dispute; and
    (7) Any other exhibits that play a significant role in setting 
forth the facts of the claim.
    (e) Additional information required during claim submission. In 
connection with the submission of the claim the claimant shall also 
provide--
    (1) For any claimant that is represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, the email address and telephone number of 
that claimant. Such information shall not be part of the claim; and
    (2) Any further information that the Board may determine should be 
provided.
    (f) Respondent address requirement for claim submission. Any claim 
for which a respondent's mailing address has not been provided pursuant 
to paragraph (c)(6) of this section shall not be found compliant under 
37 CFR 224.1 unless the claimant provides the address of the respondent 
to the Board within 60 days of the date the claim was

[[Page 17002]]

filed under paragraph (a) of this section. If the claimant does not 
provide a respondent address within that period of time, the Board may 
dismiss the claim without prejudice.


Sec.  222.3   Initial notice.

    (a) Content of initial notice. The Board shall prepare an initial 
notice for the claimant(s) to serve on each respondent that shall--
    (1) Include on the first page a caption that provides the parties' 
names and includes the docket number assigned by the Board;
    (2) Be addressed to the respondent;
    (3) Provide the name(s) and mailing address(es) of the claimant(s);
    (4) For any claimant that is represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, provide the name(s), mailing address(es), 
email address(es), and telephone number(s) of such legal counsel or 
authorized representative;
    (5) For any claimant that is not represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, provide the email address and telephone 
number of that claimant;
    (6) Advise the respondent that a legal proceeding that could affect 
the respondent's legal rights has been commenced by the claimant(s) in 
the Board against the respondent;
    (7) Identify the nature of the claims asserted against the 
respondent, which shall consist of at least one of the following:
    (i) A claim for infringement of an exclusive right in a copyrighted 
work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106;
    (ii) A claim for a declaration of noninfringement of an exclusive 
right in a copyrighted work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106; and
    (iii) A claim under 17 U.S.C. 512(f) for misrepresentation in 
connection with--
    (A) A notification of claimed infringement; or
    (B) A counter notification seeking to replace removed or disabled 
material;
    (8) Describe the Board, including that it is a three-member 
tribunal within the Copyright Office that has been established by law 
to resolve certain copyright disputes in which the total monetary 
recovery does not exceed $30,000;
    (9) State that the respondent has the right to opt out of 
participating in the proceeding, and that the consequence of opting out 
is that the proceeding shall be dismissed without prejudice and the 
claimant shall have to determine whether to file a lawsuit in a Federal 
district court;
    (10) State that if the respondent does not opt out within 60 days 
from the day the respondent received the initial notice, the proceeding 
shall go forward and the respondent shall--
    (i) Lose the opportunity to have the dispute decided by the Federal 
court system, created under Article III of the Constitution of the 
United States; and
    (ii) Waive the right to have a trial by jury regarding the dispute;
    (11) State that the notice is in regard to an official Government 
proceeding and provide information on how to access the docket of the 
proceeding in eCCB;
    (12) Provide information on how to become a registered user of 
eCCB;
    (13) State that parties may represent themselves in the proceeding, 
but note that a party may wish to consult with legal counsel or with a 
law school clinic, and provide reference to pro bono resources (i.e., 
legal services provided without charge for those services) which may be 
available and are listed on the Board's website;
    (14) Indicate where other pertinent information concerning 
proceedings before the Board may be found on the Board's website;
    (15) Provide direction on how a respondent may opt out of the 
proceeding, either online or by mail; and
    (16) Include any additional information that the Board may 
determine should be included.
    (b) Service of initial notice. Following notification from the 
Board pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1506(f)(1)(A) to proceed with service of 
the claim, the claimant shall cause the initial notice, the claim, the 
opt-out notification form, and any other documents required by the 
direction of the Board to be served with the initial notice and the 
claim, upon each respondent as prescribed in Sec.  222.5(b) and 17 
U.S.C. 1506(g). The copy of the claim that is served shall be of the 
claim that was found to be compliant under 37 CFR 224.1, and is, at the 
time of service, available on eCCB. The initial notice, the claim, the 
opt-out notification form, and any other document required by the Board 
shall not be accompanied by any additional substantive communications 
or materials, including without limitation settlement demands, 
correspondence purporting to describe the claim or the strength of the 
claim, or exhibits not filed with the claim, when served by the 
claimant(s).


Sec.  222.4  Second notice.

    (a) Content of second notice. The second notice to the respondent 
shall--
    (1) Include on the first page a caption that provides the parties' 
names and the docket number;
    (2) Be addressed to the respondent, using the address that appeared 
in the initial notice or an updated address, if an updated address was 
provided to the Board prior to service of the second notice;
    (3) Include the contact information for the claimant(s) and 
claimant's legal counsel or authorized representative, for any claimant 
represented by legal counsel or an authorized representative;
    (4) Advise the respondent that a proceeding that could affect the 
respondent's legal rights has been commenced by the claimant(s) in the 
Board against the respondent;
    (5) Identify the nature of the claims asserted against the 
respondent, which shall consist of at least one of the following:
    (i) A claim for infringement of an exclusive right in a copyrighted 
work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106;
    (ii) A claim for a declaration of noninfringement of an exclusive 
right in a copyrighted work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106; and
    (iii) A claim under 17 U.S.C. 512(f) for misrepresentation in 
connection with--
    (A) A notification of claimed infringement; or
    (B) A counter notification seeking to replace removed or disabled 
material;
    (6) Describe the Board, including that it is a three-member 
tribunal within the Copyright Office that has been established by law 
to resolve certain copyright disputes in which the total monetary 
recovery does not exceed $30,000;
    (7) State that the respondent has the right to opt out of 
participating in the proceeding, and that the consequence of opting out 
is that the proceeding shall be dismissed and the claimant shall have 
to determine whether to file a lawsuit in a Federal district court;
    (8) State that if the respondent does not opt out within 60 days 
from the day the respondent received the initial notice, the 
consequences are that the proceeding shall go forward and the 
respondent shall--
    (i) Lose the opportunity to have the dispute decided by the Federal 
court system, created under Article III of the Constitution of the 
United States; and
    (ii) Waive the right to have a trial by jury regarding the dispute;
    (9) Provide information on how to access the docket of the 
proceeding in eCCB and how to become a registered user of that system;
    (10) State that the notice is in regard to an official Government 
proceeding and provide information on how to access the docket of the 
proceeding eCCB;
    (11) Provide information on how to become a registered user of 
eCCB;

[[Page 17003]]

    (12) State that parties may represent themselves in the proceeding, 
but note that a party may wish to consult with legal counsel or with a 
law school clinic, and provide reference to pro bono resources (i.e., 
legal services provided without charge for those services) which may be 
available and are listed on the Board's website;
    (13) Indicate where other pertinent information concerning 
proceedings before the Board may be found on the Board's website;
    (14) Provide direction on how a respondent may opt out of the 
proceeding, either online or by mail;
    (15) Be accompanied by the documents described in Sec.  222.3(b); 
and
    (16) Include any additional information or documents at the Board's 
direction.
    (b) Timing of second notice. The Board shall issue the second 
notice in the manner prescribed by Sec.  222.5(d)(2) no later than 20 
days after the claimant files proof of service or a completed waiver of 
service with the Board, unless the respondent has already submitted an 
opt-out notification pursuant to 37 CFR 223.1.


Sec.  222.5   Service; waiver of service; filing.

    (a) In general. Unless specified otherwise, all filings made by a 
party in CCB proceedings must be filed in eCCB. Except as provided 
elsewhere in this section, documents are served on a party who is a 
registered user of the eCCB and filed with the Board by submitting them 
to eCCB. Service is complete upon filing, but is not effective if the 
filer learns that it did not reach the person to be served.
    (b) Service of initial notice, claim, and related documents--(1) 
Timing of service. A claimant may proceed with service of a claim only 
after the claim is reviewed by a Copyright Claims Attorney and the 
claimant is notified that the claim is compliant under 37 CFR 224.1.
    (2) Service methods. (i) Service of the initial notice, the claim, 
and other documents required by this part or the Board to be served 
with the initial notice and claim shall be made as provided under 17 
U.S.C. 1506(g), as supplemented by this section.
    (ii) If a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association 
has designated a service agent under 17 U.S.C. 1506(g)(5)(B) and Sec.  
222.6, service must be made by certified mail or by any other method 
that the entity specifies in its designation under Sec.  222.6 that it 
will accept.
    (3) Filing of proof of service. (i) No later than the earlier of 
seven calendar days after service of the initial notice and all 
accompanying documents under paragraph (b) of this section and 90 days 
after receiving notification of compliance, a claimant shall file a 
completed proof of service form through eCCB. The proof of service form 
shall be located on the Board's website.
    (ii) The claimant's failure to comply with the filing deadline in 
paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section may constitute exceptional 
circumstances justifying an extension of the 60-day period in which a 
respondent may deliver an opt-out notification to the Board under 17 
U.S.C. 1506(i).
    (c) Waiver of personal service--(1) Delivery of request for waiver 
of service. A claimant may request that a respondent waive personal 
service as provided by 17 U.S.C. 1506(g)(6) by delivering, via first 
class mail, the following to the respondent:
    (i) A completed waiver of personal service form provided on the 
Board's website;
    (ii) The documents described in Sec.  222.3, including the initial 
notice and the claim; and
    (iii) An envelope, with postage prepaid and addressed to the 
claimant requesting the waiver or, for a claimant represented by legal 
counsel or an authorized representative, to that claimant's legal 
counsel or authorized representative.
    (2) Content of waiver of service request. The request for waiver of 
service shall be prepared using a form provided by the Board that 
shall--
    (i) Bear the name of the Board;
    (ii) Include on the first page and waiver page the caption 
identifying the parties and the docket number;
    (iii) Be addressed to the respondent;
    (iv) Contain the date of the request;
    (v) Notify the respondent that a legal proceeding has been 
commenced by the claimant(s) before the Board against the respondent;
    (vi) Advise that the form is not a summons or official notice from 
the Board;
    (vii) Request that respondent waive formal service of summons by 
signing the enclosed waiver;
    (viii) State that a waiver of personal service shall not constitute 
a waiver of the right to opt out of the proceeding;
    (ix) Describe the effect of agreeing or declining to waive service;
    (x) Include a waiver of personal service form provided by the 
Board, containing a clear statement that waiving service does not 
affect the respondent's ability to opt out of the proceeding and that, 
if signed and returned by the respondent, will include--
    (A) An affirmation that the respondent is waiving service;
    (B) An affirmation that the respondent understands that the 
respondent may opt out of the proceeding within 60 days of receiving 
the request;
    (C) The name and mailing address of the respondent;
    (D) For a respondent that is represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, the name(s), mailing address(es), email 
address(es), and telephone number(s) of such legal counsel or 
authorized representative;
    (E) For a respondent that is not represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, the email address and telephone number of 
that respondent; and
    (F) The typed, printed, or handwritten signature of the respondent 
or, if the respondent is represented by legal counsel or an authorized 
representative, the typed, printed, or handwritten signature of the 
respondent's legal counsel or authorized representative. If the 
signature is handwritten, it shall be accompanied by a typed or printed 
name; and
    (xi) Not be accompanied by any other substantive communications.
    (3) Completing waiver of service. The respondent may complete 
waiver of service by returning the signed waiver form in the postage 
prepaid envelope to claimant by mail or, if the claimant also provides 
an email address to which the waiver of personal service form may be 
returned, by means of an email to which a copy of the signed form is 
attached. Waiving service does not affect a respondent's ability to opt 
out of a proceeding.
    (4) Timing of completing waiver. The respondent has 30 days from 
the date on which the request was sent to return the waiver form.
    (5) Filing of waiver. Where the respondent has completed the waiver 
form, the claimant must submit the completed waiver form to the Board 
no later than the earlier of seven calendar days after the date the 
claimant received the signed waiver form from the respondent or 90 days 
after receiving notification of compliance.
    (d) Service by the Copyright Claims Board--(1) In general. Except 
as otherwise provided in this paragraph (d), the Board shall serve one 
copy of all orders, notices, decisions, rulings on motions, and similar 
documents issued by the Board upon each party through eCCB.
    (2) Service of second notice. (i) The Board shall serve the second 
notice required under 17 U.S.C. 1506(h) and Sec.  222.4, along with the 
documents described in Sec.  222.3(b), by sending them by mail to the 
respondent at the address provided--

[[Page 17004]]

    (A) In the designated service agent directory, if the respondent is 
a corporation, partnership, or unincorporated association that has 
designated a service agent; and, if not,
    (B) By the claimant in the claim or, in a subsequent communication 
correcting the address.
    (ii) The Board shall also serve the second notice by email if an 
email address for the respondent has been provided in the designated 
service agent directory or by the claimant.
    (3) Service of order regarding second filing fee and electronic 
filing registration on claimants. The Board shall serve the orders set 
forth in Sec.  222.7--
    (i) On any respondents that have not registered for eCCB in the 
manner set forth in paragraph (d)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) On any claimants that have not registered for eCCB by sending 
such documents--
    (A) By mail at the address provided for the claimant in the claim 
and by email at the email address provided for the claimant in the 
claim; or
    (B) If the claimant is represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, by mail at the address provided for such 
counsel or authorized representative in the claim and by email at the 
email address provided for such legal counsel or authorized 
representative in the claim.
    (e) Service of discovery requests, responses, and responsive 
documents--(1) Service of discovery requests, responses, and responsive 
documents. Except as provided in paragraph (f) of this section, unless 
the parties agree in writing to other arrangements, discovery requests 
and responses shall be served by email and documents or other evidence 
responsive to discovery requests shall be served by email where the 
size and format of the documents or evidence make such service 
reasonably possible. If such documents or other evidence cannot 
reasonably be served by email, the parties shall confer and agree to 
other arrangements. Should the parties be unable to agree to other 
arrangements, such documents or other evidence shall be served by mail. 
Service is complete upon sending, but service is not effective if the 
sender learns that it did not reach the party to be served.
    (i) If a party is represented by legal counsel or an authorized 
representative, service under this paragraph must be made on the legal 
counsel or authorized representative at that legal counsel's or 
authorized representative's email address, or mailing address provided 
in the claim, response, or notice of appearance, unless the Board 
orders service on the party.
    (ii) If a party is not represented, service under this paragraph 
(e)(1) must be made on the party at the email address or mailing 
address provided by that party in the claim or response.
    (2) Filing generally prohibited. Unless the Board orders otherwise, 
discovery requests and responses should not be filed with the Board 
unless a party relies on the request or response as part of another 
filing in the proceeding.
    (f) Waiver of electronic filing and service requirements. In 
exceptional circumstances, an individual not represented by legal 
counsel or an authorized representative may request that the Board 
waive the electronic filing and service requirements set forth in this 
subchapter. Whether such a waiver is granted is at the Board's 
discretion. If a waiver is granted, the Board shall instruct the 
parties as to the filing and service requirements for that proceeding 
based on consideration of the circumstances of the proceeding and the 
parties.

0
7. Add Sec. Sec.  222.7 through 222.10 to read as follows:

Sec.
* * * * *
222.7 Order regarding second filing fee and electronic filing 
registration.
222.8 Response.
222.9 Counterclaim.
222.10 Response to counterclaim.


Sec.  222.7  Order regarding second filing fee and electronic filing 
registration.

    (a) Issuance of order. Once a proceeding has become active with 
respect to all respondents who have been served and have not opted out 
within the 60-day period set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1506(i), the Board 
shall issue an order to all parties in the proceeding providing that 
within 14 days of the order--
    (1) The claimant must submit the second payment of the filing fee 
set forth in 37 CFR 201.3(g) through eCCB; and
    (2) All claimant(s) and respondent(s) must register for eCCB unless 
they have been granted a waiver pursuant to Sec.  222.5(f).
    (b) Receipt of second payment from claimant--(1) Confirmation of 
active proceeding. Upon receipt of the second payment of the filing fee 
set forth in 37 CFR 201.3(g) and after completion of the 14-day period 
specified in the Board's order, the Board shall issue a scheduling 
order through eCCB.
    (2) Notice to respondent. If any claimant or respondent has not 
registered for eCCB, the scheduling order shall be accompanied by a 
notice to those parties that unless they have been granted a waiver 
pursuant to Sec.  222.5(f), they must register for eCCB and that a 
failure to do so within a time set by the Board may result in default 
or failure to prosecute. Such scheduling order and notice shall be 
served on the respondent according to the procedures set forth in Sec.  
222.5(d)(2).
    (c) Failure of claimant to submit second payment. If the 
claimant(s) fails to submit the second payment of the filing fee set 
forth in 37 CFR 201.3(g) within 14 days from the date of the Board's 
order, the Board shall issue another notice to the claimant(s), which 
shall provide that the proceeding shall be dismissed without prejudice 
unless the claimant(s) submits the second payment of the filing fee 
within 14 days. If the claimant(s) fails to submit the second payment 
of the filing fee within 14 days of the issuance of that notice, the 
Board shall dismiss the proceeding without prejudice, unless the Board 
finds that the proceeding should not be dismissed in the interests of 
justice.


Sec.  222.8  Response.

    (a) Filing a response. Following receipt of the scheduling order in 
an active proceeding, each respondent shall file a response through 
eCCB using the response form provided by the Board. Except for 
respondents who are represented by the same legal counsel or authorized 
representative, each respondent shall submit a separate response.
    (b) Content of response. The response shall include--
    (1) The name and mailing address of the respondent(s) and, for any 
respondents represented by legal counsel or an authorized 
representative, of such respondent's legal counsel or authorized 
representative;
    (2) The phone number and email address of--
    (i) The respondent, if the respondent is not represented by legal 
counsel or an authorized representative; or
    (ii) The legal counsel or other authorized representative for the 
respondent, if the respondent is represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative;
    (3) A short statement, if applicable, disputing any facts asserted 
in the claim;
    (4) For infringement claims brought under 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1), a 
statement describing in detail the dispute regarding the alleged 
infringement, including reasons why the respondent contends that it has 
not infringed the claimant's copyright, and any additional defenses, 
including whether any exceptions and limitations as set forth

[[Page 17005]]

in 17 U.S.C. 107 through 122 are implicated;
    (5) For declaration of noninfringement claims brought under 17 
U.S.C. 1504(c)(2), a statement describing in detail the dispute 
regarding the alleged infringement, including reasons why the 
respondent contends that its copyright has been infringed by claimant, 
and any additional defenses the respondent may have to the claim;
    (6) For misrepresentation claims brought under 17 U.S.C. 
1504(c)(3), a statement describing in detail the dispute regarding the 
alleged misrepresentation, including an explanation of why the 
respondent believes the identified words do not constitute 
misrepresentation, and any additional defenses the respondent may have 
to the claim;
    (7) Any counterclaims pursuant to Sec.  222.9; and
    (8) A certification under penalty of perjury by the respondent or 
the respondent's legal counsel or authorized representative that the 
information provided in the response is accurate and truthful to the 
best of the certifying person's knowledge and, if the certifying person 
is not the respondent, that the certifying person has confirmed the 
accuracy of the information with the respondent. The certification 
shall include the typed signature of the certifying person.
    (c) Additional matter. The respondent may also include, as 
attachments to or files that accompany the response, any material the 
respondent believes plays a significant role in setting forth the facts 
of the claim, such as:
    (1) A copy of the copyright registration certificate for a work 
that is the subject of the proceeding;
    (2) A copy of the allegedly infringed work. This copy may also be 
accompanied by additional information, such as a hyperlink or 
screenshot, that shows where the allegedly infringed work has been 
posted;
    (3) A copy of the allegedly infringing material. This copy may also 
be accompanied by additional information, such as a hyperlink or 
screenshot, that shows any allegedly infringing activity;
    (4) A copy of the notification of claimed infringement that is 
alleged to contain the misrepresentation;
    (5) A copy of the counter notification that is alleged to contain 
the misrepresentation; and
    (6) Any other exhibits that play a significant role in setting 
forth the facts of the response.
    (d) Additional information required during response submission. In 
connection with the submission of the response the respondent shall 
also provide--
    (1) For any respondent that is represented by legal counsel or an 
authorized representative, the email address and telephone number of 
that respondent. Such information shall not be part of the response; 
and
    (2) Any further information that the Board may determine should be 
provided.
    (e) Timing of response. The respondent has 30 days from the 
issuance of the scheduling order to submit a response. If the 
respondent waived personal service, the respondent will have an 
additional 30 days to submit the response.
    (f) Failure to file response. A failure to file a response within 
the required timeframe may constitute a default under 17 U.S.C. 
1506(u).


Sec.  222.9  Counterclaim.

    (a) Asserting a counterclaim. Any party can assert a counterclaim 
falling under the jurisdiction of the Board that also--
    (1) Arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the initial 
claim; or
    (2) Arises under an agreement pertaining to the same transaction or 
occurrence that is subject to an initial claim of infringement, if the 
agreement could affect the relief awarded to the claimant.
    (b) Electronic filing requirement. A party may submit a 
counterclaim through eCCB using the counterclaim form provided by the 
Board.
    (c) Content of counterclaim. The counterclaim shall include--
    (1) The name of the party or parties against whom the counterclaim 
is asserted;
    (2) An identification of the counterclaim, which shall consist of 
at least one of the following:
    (i) A claim for infringement of an exclusive right in a copyrighted 
work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106;
    (ii) A claim for a declaration of noninfringement of an exclusive 
right in a copyrighted work provided under 17 U.S.C. 106; or
    (iii) A claim under 17 U.S.C. 512(f) for misrepresentation in 
connection with--
    (A) A notification of claimed infringement; or
    (B) A counter notification seeking to replace removed or disabled 
material;
    (3) For an infringement counterclaim asserted under paragraph 
(c)(2)(i) of this section--
    (i) That the counterclaimant is the legal or beneficial owner of 
rights in a work protected by copyright and, if there are any co-
owners, their names;
    (ii) The following information for each work at issue in the 
counterclaim:
    (A) The title of the work;
    (B) The author(s) of the work;
    (C) If a copyright registration has issued for the work, the 
registration number and effective date of registration;
    (D) If an application for copyright has been submitted but a 
registration has not yet issued, the service request number (SR number) 
and registration application date; and
    (E) The work of authorship category, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 102, 
for each work at issue, or, if the counterclaimant is unable to 
determine the applicable category, a brief description of the nature of 
the work;
    (iii) A description of the facts relating to the alleged 
infringement, including, to the extent known to the counterclaimant:
    (A) Which exclusive rights provided under 17 U.S.C. 106 are at 
issue;
    (B) When the alleged infringement began;
    (C) The name(s) of all person(s) or organization(s) alleged to have 
participated in the infringing activity;
    (D) The facts leading the counterclaimant to believe the work has 
been infringed;
    (E) Whether the alleged infringement has continued through the date 
the claim was filed, or, if it has not, when the alleged infringement 
ceased;
    (F) Where the alleged act(s) of infringement occurred; and
    (G) If the claim of infringement is asserted against an online 
service provider as defined in 17 U.S.C. 512(k)(1)(B) for infringement 
by reason of the storage of or referral or linking to infringing 
material that may be subject to the limitations on liability set forth 
in 17 U.S.C. 512(b), (c), or (d), an affirmance that the 
counterclaimant has previously notified the service provider of the 
claimed infringement in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 512(b)(2)(E), (c)(3), 
or (d)(3), as applicable, and that the service provider failed to 
remove or disable access to the material expeditiously upon the 
provision of such notice;
    (4) For a declaration of noninfringement counterclaim asserted 
under paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section--
    (i) The name(s) of the person(s) or organization(s) asserting that 
the counterclaimant has infringed a copyright;
    (ii) The following information for each work alleged to have been 
infringed, if that information is known to the counterclaimant:
    (A) The title;
    (B) If a copyright registration has issued for the work, the 
registration

[[Page 17006]]

number and effective date of registration;
    (C) If an application for copyright has been submitted, but a 
registration has not yet issued, the service request number (SR number) 
and registration application date; and
    (D) The work of authorship category, as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 102, 
or, if the counterclaimant is unable to determine which category is 
applicable, a brief description of the nature of the work;
    (iii) A brief description of the activity at issue in the claim, 
including, to the extent known to the counterclaimant:
    (A) Any exclusive rights provided under 17 U.S.C. 106 that may be 
implicated;
    (B) When the activities at issue began and, if applicable, ended;
    (C) Whether the activities at issue have continued through the date 
the claim was filed;
    (D) The name(s) of all person(s) or organization(s) who 
participated in the allegedly infringing activity; and
    (E) Where the activities at issue occurred;
    (iv) A brief statement describing the reasons why the 
counterclaimant believes that no infringement occurred, including any 
relevant history or agreements between the parties and whether 
counterclaimant currently believes any exceptions and limitations as 
set forth in 17 U.S.C. 107 through 122 are implicated; and
    (v) A brief statement describing the reasons why the 
counterclaimant believes that there is an actual controversy concerning 
the requested declaration;
    (5) For a misrepresentation counterclaim asserted under paragraph 
(c)(2)(iii) of this section--
    (i) The sender of the notification of claimed infringement;
    (ii) The recipient of the notification of claimed infringement;
    (iii) The date the notification of claimed infringement was sent, 
if known;
    (iv) A description of the notification;
    (v) If a counter notification was sent in response to the 
notification--
    (A) The sender of the counter notification;
    (B) The recipient of the counter notification;
    (C) The date the counter notification was sent, if known; and
    (D) A description of the counter notification;
    (vi) The words in the notification or counter notification that 
allegedly constituted a misrepresentation; and
    (vii) An explanation of the alleged misrepresentation;
    (6) For infringement claims and misrepresentation claims, a 
statement describing the harm suffered by the claimant(s) as a result 
of the alleged activity and the relief sought by the claimant(s). Such 
statement may, but is not required to, include an estimate of any 
monetary relief sought;
    (7) A statement describing the relationship between the initial 
claim and the counterclaim; and
    (8) A certification under penalty of perjury by the counterclaimant 
or the counterclaimant's legal counsel or authorized representative 
that the information provided in the counterclaim is accurate and 
truthful to the best of the certifying person's knowledge and, if the 
certifying person is not the counterclaimant, that the certifying 
person has confirmed the accuracy of the information with the 
counterclaimant. The certification shall include the typed signature of 
the certifying person.
    (d) Additional matter. The counterclaimant may also include, as 
attachments to or files that accompany the counterclaim, any material 
the counterclaimant believes plays a significant role in setting forth 
the facts of the claim, such as:
    (1) A copy of the copyright registration certificate for a work 
that is the subject of the proceeding;
    (2) A copy of the allegedly infringed work. This copy may also be 
accompanied by additional information, such as a hyperlink or 
screenshot, that shows where the allegedly infringed work has been 
posted;
    (3) A copy of the allegedly infringing material. This copy may also 
be accompanied by additional information, such as a hyperlink or 
screenshot, that shows any allegedly infringing activity;
    (4) A copy of the notification of claimed infringement that is 
alleged to contain the misrepresentation;
    (5) A copy of the counter notification that is alleged to contain 
the misrepresentation; and
    (6) Any other exhibits that play a significant role in setting 
forth the facts of the counterclaim.
    (e) Timing of counterclaim. A counterclaim must be served and filed 
with the respondent's response unless the Board, for good cause, 
permits a counterclaim to be asserted at a subsequent time.


Sec.  222.10  Response to counterclaim.

    (a) Filing a response to a counterclaim. Within 30 days following 
the Board's issuance of notification that a counterclaim is compliant 
under 37 CFR 224.1, a claimant against whom a counterclaim has been 
asserted (counterclaim respondent) shall file a response to the 
counterclaim through eCCB using the response form provided by the 
Board.
    (b) Content of response to a counterclaim. The response to a 
counterclaim shall include--
    (1) The name, mailing address, phone number, and email address of 
each counterclaim respondent filing the response;
    (2) A short statement, if applicable, disputing any facts asserted 
in the counterclaim;
    (3) For counterclaims brought under 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(1), a 
statement describing in detail the dispute regarding the alleged 
infringement, including any defenses as well as any reason why the 
counterclaim respondent believes there was no infringement of 
copyright, including any exceptions and limitations as set forth in 17 
U.S.C. 107 through 122 that are implicated;
    (4) For counterclaims brought under 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(2), a 
statement describing in detail the dispute regarding the alleged 
infringement, including reasons why the counterclaim respondent 
believes there is infringement of copyright;
    (5) For counterclaims brought under 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(3), a 
statement describing in detail the dispute regarding the alleged 
misrepresentation and an explanation of why the counterclaim respondent 
believes the identified words do not constitute misrepresentation; and
    (6) A certification under penalty of perjury by the claimant, the 
claimant's legal counsel, or the claimant's authorized representative 
that the information provided in the response to the counterclaim is 
accurate and truthful to the best of the certifying person's knowledge 
and, if the certifying person is not the counterclaim respondent, that 
the certifying person has confirmed the accuracy of the information 
with the counterclaim respondent. The certification shall include the 
typed signature of the certifying person.
    (c) Additional matter. The counterclaim respondent may also 
include, as attachments to or files that accompany the counterclaim 
response, any material the counterclaim respondent believes play a 
significant role in setting forth the facts of the claim, such as:
    (1) A copy of the copyright registration certificate for a work 
that is the subject of the proceeding;
    (2) A copy of the allegedly infringed work. This copy may also be 
accompanied by additional information, such as a hyperlink or 
screenshot, that

[[Page 17007]]

shows where the allegedly infringed work has been posted;
    (3) A copy of the allegedly infringing material. This copy may also 
be accompanied by additional information, such as a hyperlink or 
screenshot, that shows any allegedly infringing activity;
    (4) A copy of the notification of claimed infringement that is 
alleged to contain the misrepresentation;
    (5) A copy of the counter notification that is alleged to contain 
the misrepresentation; and
    (6) Any other exhibits that play a significant role in setting 
forth the facts of the counterclaim response.
    (d) Failure to file counterclaim response. A failure to file a 
counterclaim response within the timeframe required by this section may 
constitute a default under 17 U.S.C. 1506(u), and the Board may begin 
default proceedings.

PART 223--OPT-OUT PROVISIONS

0
8. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.


0
9. Add Sec.  223.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  223.1  Respondent's opt-out.

    (a) Effect of opt-out on particular proceeding. A respondent may 
opt out of a proceeding before the Copyright Claims Board (Board) 
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1506(i) following the procedures set forth in 
this section. A respondent's opt-out shall result in the dismissal of 
the claim without prejudice.
    (b) Content of opt-out notification. The respondent's opt-out 
notification shall include--
    (1) The docket number assigned by the Board and contained in either 
the initial notice served by the claimant or the second notice;
    (2) The respondent's name;
    (3) The respondent's mailing address;
    (4) An affirmation that the respondent shall not appear before the 
Board with respect to the claim served by the claimant;
    (5) A certification under penalty of perjury that the individual 
completing the notification is the respondent identified in the claim 
served by the claimant or is the legal counsel or authorized 
representative of the respondent identified in the claim and has been 
directed and authorized by the respondent to opt out of the particular 
proceeding; and
    (6) The typed, printed, or handwritten signature of the respondent 
or its legal counsel or authorized representative, and, if the 
signature is handwritten, a typed or printed name.
    (c) Process of opting out. Upon being served with a notice and 
claim, a respondent may complete the opt-out process by--
    (1) Completing and submitting the Board's online opt-out 
notification form available through the Board's electronic filing 
system (eCCB) as identified in the initial notice and second notice and 
providing an email address for confirmation; or
    (2) Completing and submitting the paper opt-out notification form 
included with the initial notice and second notice, providing a mailing 
address or email address to receive confirmation, and delivering it to 
the Board, either by--
    (i) First-class mail, or other class of mail that is at least as 
expeditious, postage prepaid; or
    (ii) A third party commercial carrier, that guarantees delivery no 
later than two days from the day of deposit with the service.
    (3) An online or paper opt-out notification is not complete unless 
the confirmation code, provided with both the initial notice and second 
notice, is included in the submission.
    (d) Effect of improper service. If a respondent is improperly 
served under 37 CFR 222.5 and completes the opt-out process described 
in paragraph (c) of this section, a respondent's timely opt-out will 
still be effective and result in the dismissal of the claim without 
prejudice.
    (e) Timing of opt out. The respondent has 60 days from the date of 
service or waiver of service to provide notice of its opt-out election. 
When the last day of that period falls on a weekend or a Federal 
holiday, the ending date shall be extended to the next Federal work 
day.
    (1) When opting out via the online form under paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section, the respondent's opt-out notification must be submitted 
by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the opt-out period.
    (2) When opting out under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the 
respondent's opt-out notification must be postmarked, dispatched by a 
commercial carrier, courier, or messenger, or hand-delivered to the 
Office no later than the 60-day deadline.
    (f) Extension of opt-out period. The Board may extend the 60-day 
period to opt out in exceptional circumstances and in the interests of 
justice and upon written notice to the claimant. Either a respondent 
individually or the parties jointly may contact the Board through a 
Copyright Claims Attorney to request an extension of the opt-out 
period.
    (g) Multiple respondents. In claims involving multiple respondents, 
each respondent who elects to opt out must separately complete the opt-
out process.
    (h) Confirmation of opt-out. When a respondent has completed the 
opt-out process, the Board shall notify all parties to the proceeding.
    (i) Effect of opt out on refiled claims. If the claimant attempts 
to refile a claim against the same respondent(s), covering in substance 
the same acts and the same theories of recovery after the respondent's 
initial opt-out notification, the Board shall apply the prior opt-out 
election and dismiss the claim unless the claimant can demonstrate that 
the respondent affirmatively has agreed to resubmission of the parties' 
dispute to the Board for resolution.
    (j) Effect of opt-out on unrelated claims. The respondent's opt-out 
for a particular claim shall not be construed as an opt-out for claims 
involving different acts or different theories of recovery.


0
10. Add part 224 to read as follows:

PART 224--REVIEW OF CLAIMS BY OFFICERS AND ATTORNEYS

Sec.
224.1 Compliance review.
224.2 Dismissal for unsuitability.

    Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702, 1510.


Sec.  224.1  Compliance review.

    (a) Compliance review by Copyright Claims Attorney. Upon the filing 
of a claim or counterclaim with the Copyright Claims Board (Board), a 
Copyright Claims Attorney shall review the claim for compliance with 17 
U.S.C. chapter 15 and this subchapter, as provided in this section.
    (b) Substance of compliance review. The Copyright Claims Attorney 
shall review the claim or counterclaim for compliance with all legal 
and formal requirements for a claim or counterclaim before the Board, 
including:
    (1) The provisions set forth under this subchapter;
    (2) The requirements set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1504(c), (d), and 
(e)(1); and
    (3) Whether the allegations in the claim or the counterclaim 
clearly do not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
    (c) Issuing finding. Upon completing a compliance review, the 
Copyright Claims Attorney shall notify the party that submitted the 
document in accordance with 37 CFR 222.5 and 17 U.S.C. 1506(f) by--
    (1) Informing the claimant or counterclaimant that the claim or 
counterclaim has been found to comply

[[Page 17008]]

with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and 
instructing the claimant to proceed with service under 37 CFR 222.5 and 
17 U.S.C. 1506(g); or
    (2) Informing the claimant or counterclaimant that the claim or 
counterclaim, respectively, does not comply with the applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements and identifying the noncompliant 
issue(s) according to the procedure set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1506(f).
    (d) Dismissal without prejudice. If the original claim and an 
amended claim were previously reviewed by the Copyright Claims Attorney 
and were found not to comply with the applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements, and if the Copyright Claims Attorney 
concludes, following the submission of a second amended claim, that the 
claim still does not comply with the applicable statutory and 
regulatory requirements, the claim shall be referred to a Copyright 
Claims Officer who shall confirm whether the second amended claim 
complies with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. If 
the Copyright Claims Officer concurs with the conclusion of the 
Copyright Claims Attorney, the proceeding shall be dismissed without 
prejudice.
    (e) Clearance is not endorsement. The finding that a claim or 
counterclaim complies with the applicable statutory and regulatory 
requirements does not constitute a determination as to the validity of 
the allegations asserted or other statements made in the claim or 
counterclaim.
    (f) No factual investigations. For the purpose of the compliance 
review, the Copyright Claims Attorney shall accept the facts stated in 
the claim or counterclaim materials, unless they are clearly 
contradicted by information provided elsewhere in the materials or in 
the Board's records. The Copyright Claims Attorney shall not conduct an 
investigation or make findings of fact; however, the Copyright Claims 
Attorney may take administrative notice of facts or matters that are 
well known to the general public, and may use that knowledge during 
review of the claim or counterclaim.


Sec.  224.2  Dismissal for unsuitability.

    (a) Review by Copyright Claims Attorney. During the compliance 
review under Sec.  224.1, the Copyright Claims Attorney shall review 
the claim or counterclaim for unsuitability on grounds set forth in 17 
U.S.C. 1506(f)(3). If the Copyright Claims Attorney concludes that the 
claim should be dismissed for unsuitability, the Copyright Claims 
Attorney shall recommend to the Board that the Board dismiss the claim 
and shall set forth the basis for that conclusion.
    (b) Dismissal by the Board for unsuitability. (1) If, upon 
recommendation by a Copyright Claims Attorney as set forth in paragraph 
(a) of this section or at any other time in the proceeding upon the 
request of a party or on its own initiative, the Board determines that 
a claim or counterclaim should be dismissed for unsuitability under 17 
U.S.C. 1506(f)(3), the Board shall issue an order stating its intention 
to dismiss the claim without prejudice.
    (2) Within 30 days following issuance of an order under paragraph 
(b) of this section, the claimant or counterclaimant may request that 
the Board reconsider its determination. The respondent or counterclaim 
respondent may file a response within 30 days following service of the 
claimant's request.
    (3) Following the expiration of the time for the respondent or 
counterclaim respondent to submit a response, the Board shall render 
its final decision whether to dismiss the claim for unsuitability.
    (c) Request by a party to dismiss a claim or counterclaim for 
unsuitability. At any time, any party who believes that a claim or 
counterclaim is unsuitable for determination by the Board may file a 
request providing the basis for such belief. An opposing party may file 
a response within 14 days of the date of service of the request, 
setting forth the basis for such opposition to the request. There will 
be no reply papers related to a request to dismiss for unsuitability 
unless ordered by the Board in its discretion.

    Dated: March 16, 2022.
Shira Perlmutter,
Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office.
    Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2022-06264 Filed 3-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410-30-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>