30060 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

1Public Law 116–260, sec. 212, 134 Stat. 1182, 

2176 (2020). 

2See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 18–20 

(2019); S. Rep. No. 116–105, at 7–8 (2019). Note, the 

CASE Act legislative history cited is for H.R. 2426 

and S. 1273, the CASE Act of 2019, a bill nearly 

identical to the CASE Act of 2020. See H.R. 2426, 

116th Cong. (2019); S. 1273, 116th Cong. (2019). In 

developing the CASE Act, Congress drew on model 

legislation in the Office’s 2013 policy report, 

Copyright Small Claims (2013), https://

www.copyright.gov/docs/smallclaims/usco-small

copyrightclaims.pdf (‘‘Copyright Small Claims’’). 

Congress also incorporated the Office’s report and 

supporting materials into the statute’s legislative 

history. H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 19; S. Rep. No. 

116–105, at 2. 

3See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 18–20; S. 

Rep. No. 116–105, at 7–8. 

4 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. 

5 86 FR 69890 (Dec. 8, 2021). The Office has also 

published separate notices and final rules 

implementing other aspects of the CASE Act. 86 FR 

21990 (Apr. 26, 2021) (proposing regulations for 

expedited copyright registrations of works at issue 

in CCB proceedings, and a Freedom of Information 

Act (‘‘FOIA’’)-conforming amendment); 86 FR 

49273 (Sept. 2, 2021) (proposing regulations for 

libraries and archives to opt out of CCB 

proceedings, and for parties to opt out of related 

class actions); 86 FR 53897 (Sept. 29, 2021) 

(proposing regulations regarding initial stages of 

CCB proceedings); 86 FR 74394 (Dec. 30, 2021) 

(proposing regulations regarding party 

representation by law students and representation 

of business entities); 86 FR 46119 (Aug. 18, 2021) 

(final rule concerning expedited registration and 

technical update to FOIA regulations); 87 FR 12861 

(Mar. 8, 2022) (partial final rule establishing 

regulations for designating agents for service of 

process); 87 FR 13171 (Mar. 9, 2022) (final rule 

establishing regulations concerning library and 

archives opt-outs and class actions); 87 FR 16989 

(Mar. 25, 2022) (final rule establishing regulations 

for initiating proceedings and related procedures). 

6 86 FR 16156, 16165. 

7See, e.g., 85 FR 9374 (Feb. 19, 2020) (final rule 

establishing adjusted fees for services). 

8Public Law 116–260, sec. 212(d), 134 Stat. at 

2199–2200. 

9Copyright Alliance et al. Initial Comments at 9. 

10 Guidelines for ex parte meetings are available 

at https://www.copyright.gov/about/small-claims/ 

related-rulemakings.html. 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

U.S. Copyright Office 

37 CFR Parts 201, 220, 222, 224, 225, 

226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, and 

233 

[Docket No. 2021–8] 

Copyright Claims Board: Active 

Proceedings and Evidence 

AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library 

of Congress. 

ACTION: Final rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Copyright Office is 

issuing a final rule establishing 

procedures governing active 

proceedings before the Copyright Claims 

Board and post-determination 

procedures. The final rule provides 

requirements regarding procedural 

practice, scheduling, conferences, 

discovery, written testimony, hearings, 

settlement, default and failure to 

prosecute, records, post-determination 

procedures, conduct of parties and 

limits on the number of claims that can 

be brought. The final rule also describes 

the procedures for ‘‘smaller claims’’ and 

solicits public comments on these 

regulations. 

DATES: Effective June 16, 2022. Written 

comments must be received no later 

than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on 

November 14, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: For reasons of Government 

efficiency, the Copyright Office is using 

the regulations.gov system for the 

submission and posting of public 

comments in this proceeding. All 

comments are therefore to be submitted 

electronically through regulations.gov. 

Specific instructions for submitting 

comments are available on the 

Copyright Office’s website at https://

www.copyright.gov/rulemaking/caseact-implementation/activeproceedings/. If electronic submission of 

comments is not feasible due to lack of 

access to a computer or the internet, 

please contact the Copyright Office 

using the contact information below for 

special instructions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Megan Efthimiadis, Assistant to the 

General Counsel, by email at meft@

copyright.gov, or by telephone at 202– 

707–8350. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Copyright Alternative in SmallClaims Enforcement (‘‘CASE’’) Act of 

2020 1 directs the Copyright Office 

(‘‘Office’’) to establish the Copyright 

Claims Board (‘‘CCB’’), an alternative 

forum to Federal court in which parties 

may seek resolution of copyright 

disputes that have a total monetary 

value of $30,000 or less.2 The CCB is 

designed to be accessible to pro se 

parties without formal legal training and 

others with little exposure to copyright 

law.3 The Office published a 

notification of inquiry (‘‘NOI’’) asking 

for public comments on the CCB’s 

operations and procedures.4 A 

subsequent notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) proposed 

regulations to govern active proceedings 

before the CCB and post-determination 

review, including on the CCB’s 

management of parties (i.e., joinder, 

dismissal, default, failure to prosecute, 

party conduct, and numerical limits on 

cases that parties may bring); 

management of proceedings (i.e., 

scheduling orders, amending pleadings, 

claim consolidation, settlement, 

hearings, ‘‘smaller’’ claims, and 

records); evidence and discovery (i.e., 

written testimony, protective orders, 

interrogatories, requests for admission, 

document production, discovery 

disputes, and sanctions); and postdetermination rehearing and the 

Register’s review.5

This final rule marks the completion 

of all regulations required for the CCB 

to begin operations, but the Office 

expects to exercise its regulatory 

authority to promulgate additional 

CASE Act regulations going forward as 

it deems necessary. As noted in its 

CASE Act NOI, the Office has deferred 

exercising its regulatory authority on 

certain topics until a later date.6 For 

topics that the Office has already 

addressed by regulation, it will be 

monitoring how those regulations are 

functioning as the CCB starts hearing 

claims, including, for example: Whether 

the limitations on proceedings should 

be adjusted; whether the discovery 

regulations strike the right balance 

between allowing necessary access to 

information and being too burdensome; 

and whether hearing attendance 

limitations should be eased. Further, as 

with its other services,7 the Office will 

periodically review and potentially 

adjust any CASE Act-related fees. 

Additionally, the CASE Act requires the 

Office to conduct a future study on the 

CCB’s operations,8 which will likely 

prompt additional discussions regarding 

both regulatory and legislative changes. 

Finally, as further discussed below, the 

Office is soliciting additional public 

comments on its final regulations 

governing ‘‘smaller claims.’’ 

The Copyright Alliance et al. urged 

the Office to ‘‘consider adopting the 

CASE Act implementing regulations on 

an interim basis at this stage’’ and 

postpone issuing final rules, or plan to 

publish another notice of inquiry 

seeking public comment on the efficacy 

of the rules after a year.9 While the 

Office declines to follow this suggestion, 

it understands the desire to provide 

additional feedback on whether the 

regulations are functioning as intended. 

The Office therefore encourages the 

public to provide any feedback 

regarding the CASE Act’s regulations 

and operations at any time via the 

Office’s ex parte meeting process,10 so 

that the Office has the opportunity to 

promptly address any unforeseen issues. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30061 

11H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 17; see also S. Rep. 

No. 116–105, at 9–10. 12H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 19 (quoting 

Copyright Small Claims at 8). 13 Id. 14Comments in response to the NPRM are 

available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/ 

COLC-2021-0007-0001/comment. References to 

comments responding to the NPRM are by party 

name (abbreviated where appropriate), followed by 

‘‘Initial NPRM Comments’’ or ‘‘Reply NPRM 

Comments,’’ as appropriate. 15Amazon.com, Inc. (‘‘Amazon’’) Initial NPRM 

Comments at 2; Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 

2. 16Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 1–2; 

Anonymous I Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Anonymous II Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 8; H Smith Initial NPRM Comments; Engine 

Initial NPRM Comments at 5; Motion Picture 

Assoc., Inc. (‘‘MPA’’) & Recording Industry Assoc. 

of Am., Inc. (‘‘RIAA’’) Initial NPRM Comments at 

2–3; Music Creators of N. Am. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 3; Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers 

of Am., Inc. (‘‘SFWA’’) Reply NPRM Comments at 

2. 

17Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 2, 5–6, 7– 

8; Public Knowledge Initial NPRM Comments at 3; 

Southlaw Ent. Initial NPRM Comments; Verizon 

Initial NPRM Comments at 1–2; SFWA Reply 

NPRM Comments at 2–5. 

18See Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 

2. 

19Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 7. 

20MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

21H. Smith Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Anonymous I Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

22H. Smith Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Anonymous I Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Anonymous II Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

23H. Smith Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Anonymous I Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Anonymous II Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

24Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

25See, e.g., Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton, 212 

F.3d 477, 481 (9th Cir. 2000) (‘‘Absent direct 

evidence of copying, proof of infringement involves 

fact-based showings that the defendant had ‘access’ 

to the plaintiff’s work and that the two works are 

‘substantially similar.’ ’’) (quoting Smith v. Jackson, 

84 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir. 1996)); Peter Pan 

Fabrics, Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp., 274 F.2d 487, 

489 (2d Cir. 1960) (‘‘The test for infringement of a 

copyright is of necessity vague. . . . Decisions 

must . . . inevitably be ad hoc.’’). 

26E.g., Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 

3 (commenting that allowing third-party 

intervention ‘‘could add an additional level of 

complication that a pro se party likely will not have 

the legal knowledge or wherewithal to address in 

a response’’); id. at 4 (noting the Office should 

‘‘consider simplifying these rules [related to 

sanctions]’’); Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 9 (encouraging the Office to ‘‘focus on 

ways to scale back on the requirements’’); MPA & 

RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 4–5 (‘‘The 

NPRM’s proposed rules for smaller claims are much 

too complex and allow much too much discovery’’; 

proposing a smaller-claims system with ‘‘no 

discovery or motion practice permitted’’). 

27E.g., Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 19 (proposing new requirement that 

parties certify, after a proceeding is over, their 

return or disposal of any discovery material 

received from other parties); id. at 20 (urging the 

Office to add a provision giving parties an 

opportunity to object before CCB removes 

confidentiality designation from any material); id. 

at 23 (proposing that the Office add a procedure 

allowing parties to seek leave to submit additional 

testimony or evidence after a hearing on the merits); 

Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM Comments at 

8 (‘‘We . . . strongly urge the Office to simplify the 

Continued 

II. Discussion of Final Rule 

A. Overview 

The CASE Act’s legislative history 

states that the Office should establish a 

process that is ‘‘accessible especially for 

pro se parties and those with little prior 

formal exposure to copyright laws.’’ 11

Congress acknowledged that ‘‘federal 

court is effectively inaccessible to 

copyright owners seeking redress for 

claims of relatively low economic value, 

especially individual creators of limited 

resources,’’ 12 and sought to ensure ‘‘that 

copyright interests without high 

expected damages have some mode of 

enforceability.’’ 13 The Office anticipates 

that many CCB parties will appear pro 

se (i.e., without an attorney). In 

establishing the procedures to govern 

CCB proceedings, the Office is always 

guided by the CASE Act’s goal to 

improve access to justice in copyright 

disputes by providing a simpler, yet fair 

alternative to Federal litigation. 

In response to the NPRM, the Office 

received comments that articulated 

specific suggestions on CCB practices 

and procedures.14 Commenters urged 

the Office to strike a proper balance 

between two vital goals: Minimizing the 

complexities of Federal litigation 

practice that can deter parties from 

bringing and defending copyright 

claims, while establishing procedural 

safeguards so that each participant can 

fairly develop and prosecute or defend 

its case.15 Some commenters voiced 

concerns that the proposed regulations 

might be both too complex in certain 

respects 16 and too vague in others,17

either of which could create problems, 

particularly for pro se parties. As a 

result, the proposed regulations could 

put pro se parties at a disadvantage in 

proceedings against more sophisticated 

parties or representatives. The Office 

carefully reviewed the proposed rules 

with these comments in mind. As a 

result, the Office has made amendments 

to simplify the regulatory language 

while ensuring that sufficient 

procedural safeguards are in place to 

protect all parties.18

Some commenters cautioned that the 

Office should minimize complexity not 

only in the regulatory language but also 

in the substance of the rules. The 

Copyright Alliance et al. contended that 

‘‘the primary problem is not that the 

language used in the regulations is 

complex, but rather that the procedures 

set forth in the regulations are extremely 

complex.’’ 19 Similarly, the MPA and 

RIAA jointly commented that 

‘‘[c]omplex rules and procedures, and 

extensive discovery, are simply not 

necessary or appropriate for the type of 

cases that will be litigated in CCB, 

where the universe of relevant 

documents and information will 

typically be quite limited.’’ 20 Some 

individuals expressed concern that the 

complexity of the proposed regulations 

is contrary to the intended purpose of 

the CCB21 and may foreclose their 

ability to utilize it.22 These commenters 

urged the Office to simplify the process 

so that it is more accessible to 

individuals.23 The Authors Guild 

‘‘emphasize[d] the importance of 

keeping the CCB process simple and 

easily navigable for individual creators 

who often make a living juggling several 

jobs and lack the knowledge or 

resources to manage the demands of a 

complicated legal process,’’ and feared 

that the ‘‘proposed rule’s complexity 

and the use of legalese undermines the 

very purpose of the CCB and will deter 

pro se parties from using the CCB.’’ 24

The Office has addressed these 

concerns in the final rule, where 

possible. Some proposed procedures 

were simplified or eliminated, and the 

Office has revised the proposed rules in 

several respects to reduce the parties’ 

procedural and knowledge burdens, as 

discussed below. However, CASE Act 

proceedings will still require sufficient 

information and evidence sharing to 

ensure just determinations. Proof in 

copyright cases is typically factdependent.25 Because the proceedings 

must be fundamentally fair to both 

claimants and respondents, all parties 

must have a reasonable opportunity to 

develop and submit the facts bearing on 

their claims and defenses. To provide a 

fair opportunity for presentation of the 

evidence, the procedures must allow for 

some degree of complexity in those 

situations where complexity is inherent 

in the factual context. Commenters also 

raised concerns about procedural 

complexities outside of the discovery 

process.26 The Office has sought to 

further streamline and simplify 

procedural requirements throughout the 

proceedings where appropriate, while 

seeking to ensure that the procedures 

will be fair to all parties and address the 

various situations that may occur. 

While most claims heard by the CCB 

will likely be fairly straightforward, the 

Office also must anticipate less 

straightforward claims and has 

promulgated regulations to 

accommodate both types. Even 

commenters asking for simpler rules 

recognized that certain circumstances 

would require more detailed 

regulations.27


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30062 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

procedures proposed in the NPRM’’); SFWA Reply 

NPRM Comments at 2 (commenting that ‘‘many 

writers and other creators will almost certainly be 

bewildered by the CCB’s rules and procedures’’); id. 

at 6 (proposing that standardized interrogatories 

and document requests should be tailored ‘‘for 

different media, formats, and kinds of publication. 

For example, publication has different meanings for 

different media.’’). 

28Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 2; 

see also Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 9–10 (urging Office to ‘‘create a 

handbook for parties that is significantly less 

complex than the regulations, easy to understand, 

and easy to follow’’). 

29See also Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 7 (anticipating the Handbook ‘‘will be 

an invaluable tool for pro se parties’’). 

30See Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 

2 (recommending that the Handbook be developed 

with input from stakeholders who represent 

potential parties before the CCB). 

31 17 U.S.C. 1506(f)(3)(A). 

32 86 FR 69890, 69906 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.13(a)–(b)). 

33Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 2–3. 

34 Id. at 3. 

35 17 U.S.C. 1506(q)(1)–(2). 

36 86 FR 69890, 69907 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.16(b)). While the concept of ‘‘the interests of 

justice’’ is subjective and will vary based upon the 

circumstances of a particular request to withdraw 

a claim, the Office does not understand the term to 

include withdrawal of a claim because a claimant 

wishes to seek higher damages in Federal court after 

discovery has been completed in a CCB proceeding. 

37See Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 

1 (‘‘I agree with this approach because it avoids 

harassment where a claimant files a claim and then 

dismisses it once a defense is mounted, only to 

reassert it later.’’); Am. Intell. Prop. L. Assoc. 

(‘‘AIPLA’’) Initial NPRM Comments at 1–2 (‘‘Postresponse voluntary dismissals should generally be 

with prejudice, to protect the interests of 

respondents and reduce the chance of abuse or 

gamesmanship. . . . [But] the CCB should retain 

discretion to permit voluntary dismissal without 

prejudice where it is in the interests of justice.’’); 

SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 2 (‘‘SFWA 

supports the amount of discretionary judgment 

accorded to the CCB, particularly with regard to 

granting dismissals without prejudice.’’). 

38Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

39 17 U.S.C. 1506(u). 

40AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2; see also 

Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 1; 

Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 3; SFWA Reply 

NPRM Comments at 2. 

In addition to the regulations 

themselves, the Office intends to take 

many steps to help parties manage the 

process with or without legal counsel. A 

CCB Handbook, which will be available 

on the CCB.gov website and written in 

easy-to-understand language, will be a 

primary resource for parties navigating 

all aspects of CCB proceedings. The CCB 

Handbook was described in the NPRM 

and the Office received no comments 

critical of the proposal. The Authors 

Guild urged the Office to ‘‘invest 

heavily in developing a clear and easy 

to use handbook,’’ which ‘‘should spell 

out in plain language all the procedures 

that a party would need to follow to 

bring or defend a claim in the CCB, so 

that parties to proceedings can refer just 

to the handbook without having to look 

up and understand the regulations.’’ 28

While the statute and regulations govern 

CCB proceedings as a legal matter, the 

Authors Guild’s comment accurately 

sums up the Office’s guiding purpose in 

developing a CCB Handbook that can 

serve as a more convenient guide for all 

parties.29 The CCB Handbook will be 

updated, as needed, based on interested 

parties’ feedback.30 And as the 

regulations note, it will not override any 

existing statute or regulation. 

Additional information on CCB.gov 

will provide details about each stage of 

a CCB proceeding. In addition, a userfriendly electronic filing system 

(‘‘eCCB’’) will simplify filings by 

walking the parties through each step of 

the claim, response, and counterclaim 

process, with prompts to help them 

fully present their positions, and by 

providing fillable forms for situations 

that may arise throughout the 

proceeding. Copyright Claims Attorneys 

and other CCB staff will be available to 

further guide parties through any 

difficulties that they encounter. 

B. Management of Parties 

1. Joinder and Intervention 

The CASE Act requires dismissal of a 

claim for the failure to join a necessary 

party.31 The NPRM proposed a process 

for parties to bring the failure to join a 

necessary party to the CCB’s attention 

and for non-parties to seek to intervene 

in the claim.32 Except as noted below, 

the final rule makes no substantive 

revisions to what was proposed. 

The Authors Guild commented that 

requests for joinder, consolidation, and 

intervention could be too complicated 

for pro se parties to address.33 It 

opposed allowing intervention by third 

parties and suggested that, if a necessary 

party seeks to join a proceeding, ‘‘the 

CCB should simply schedule a 

conference to advise the parties that a 

third party has requested to join, 

explain the consequences of a joinder, 

and get both parties’ consent before 

allowing the joinder.’’ 34

The Office recognizes that concepts of 

joinder and necessary parties, as well as 

intervention, may be difficult for pro se 

parties to understand. The final rule 

simplifies the procedure for resolving a 

request to intervene by having such 

requests and any response filed via a 

simple form on eCCB. The CCB then 

may hold a conference to discuss the 

proposed intervention with the parties 

to the proceeding and the party seeking 

to intervene. If the party requesting 

intervention is found to be a 

‘‘necessary’’ party, the claims will be 

dismissed if the parties do not consent 

to its addition or intervention. 

2. Voluntary Withdrawal and Dismissal 

Parties may voluntarily dismiss their 

own claims or counterclaims without 

prejudice before a response is filed.35

Under the final rule, a claim or 

counterclaim cannot be voluntarily 

dismissed after a response, but the 

claimant or counterclaimant may 

request to withdraw the claim and the 

CCB will have discretion, with input 

from the parties, to dismiss the claim 

with or without prejudice. Factors to be 

considered by the CCB in exercising its 

discretion include the point in the 

proceedings at which the dismissal is 

requested and whether dismissal 

without prejudice is in the interests of 

justice.36 Several commenters expressed 

support for the proposed rule, which 

provided for this discretion.37 The 

Authors Guild suggested that ‘‘[t]he 

proposed Handbook should explain 

what ‘with prejudice’ and ‘without 

prejudice’ mean in plain English.’’ 38

The Office agrees, and will include such 

explanations in the CCB Handbook. 

3. Default and Failure To Prosecute 

a. Default Determinations 

The CASE Act provides that the CCB 

may enter a default determination if 

‘‘the respondent has failed to appear or 

has ceased participating in the 

proceeding.’’ 39 Under the proposed 

rule, respondents that do not respond to 

CCB deadlines will receive an 

opportunity to cure the first two times 

they miss a deadline without cause. 

After the third missed deadline, the CCB 

may proceed to a default judgment in its 

discretion without giving an 

opportunity to cure. This rule is 

designed to prevent respondents from 

taking advantage of the CCB 

proceedings to obtain what would 

amount to unlimited extensions of 

deadlines without seeking permission. 

Several commenters ‘‘commend[ed] the 

Office for developing a default 

procedure that balances the interests of 

the parties.’’ 40 Commenters took 

different views about the CCB’s 

discretion to commence default 

proceedings without providing the 

respondent another missed-deadline 

warning after a third missed deadline, 

and whether the CCB could consider 

defenses sua sponte on behalf of 

defaulted respondents, as discussed 

below. 

Public Knowledge disapproved of the 

provision authorizing the CCB to begin 

default proceedings at its discretion 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30063 

41Public Knowledge Initial NPRM Comments at 

3–4; see 86 FR 69890, 69913 (proposed 37 CFR 

227.1(d)). 42Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 10. 43 86 FR 69890, 69892. 44Public Knowledge Initial NPRM Comments at 

4–5. 45Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 11 (citing proposed 37 CFR 227.2, 

222.14(b)). 46 17 U.S.C. 1506(u)(1). 47Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

48 86 FR 69890, 69913 (proposed 37 CFR 

227.3(a)). 49Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 9; see also MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM 

Comments at 8–9. 50Copyright Alliance et al. Reply NPRM 

Comments at 9–10 (discussing 17 U.S.C. 1506(u)). 51See, e.g., Gunnells v. Teutul, 392 F. Supp. 3d 

451, 453–54 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (noting that courts 

should look at whether there is a ‘‘meritorious 

defense’’ before granting default judgment and 

deciding that copyright claims appeared to be 

outside the statute of limitations); Pierson v. Gamer 

World News Entm’t, Inc., Case No. CV 18–10137– 

CJC (KSxx), 2019 WL 8064255, *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 

20, 2019) (denying default judgment and ordering 

plaintiff to show cause why copyright infringement 

claim should not be dismissed based on the 

doctrine of fair use). 

52H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 24. 

53 Id. at 24–25. 

54 17 U.S.C. 1506(u)(1). 

55Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 14. 

56AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2 (discussing 

proposed 37 CFR 222.7(3)(a)); see 86 FR 69890, 

69913. 

57Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 16 (discussing proposed 37 CFR 

227.1(d), 228.2); see 86 FR 69890, 69913–14. 

58 17 U.S.C. 1506(y)(2). 

59 Id. at 1506(y)(3). 

60SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 2–3; see also 

Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 1 (‘‘We 

commend the Office for their commitment to 

prevent abuse.’’). 

without further warning notices after a 

respondent misses three deadlines 

without good cause.41 Copyright 

Alliance et al. disagreed with Public 

Knowledge and approved of the 

proposed rule, commenting that the 

CCB ‘‘has to draw the line at some point 

and cannot continue to reward a party 

that makes a practice of ignoring 

deadlines with extension after 

extension.’’ 42 As the Office explained in 

the NPRM, ‘‘[t]his provision is aimed at 

encouraging timely participation and 

preventing respondents from repeatedly 

using the default provisions as a 

backdoor extension for deadlines.’’ 43

The final regulation spells out in greater 

detail the procedural steps leading up to 

a default determination and the steps 

taken after a request to vacate a default 

determination. 

Public Knowledge also argued that the 

CCB should not ‘‘allow default 

judgments based merely on Claimant 

testimony,’’ which it contended would 

be ‘‘without any substantive evidence to 

support the claim,’’ and with ‘‘no 

opposing party to refute their 

testimony.’’ 44 Yet as Copyright Alliance 

et al. noted in reply, testimony is 

evidence.45 When a respondent fails to 

appear after multiple notices, or ceases 

to participate by missing multiple 

deadlines, the statute states that the CCB 

‘‘shall require the claimant to submit 

relevant evidence and other information 

in support of the claimant’s claim and 

any asserted damages’’ and determine 

whether that evidence supports a 

finding of default.46 Public Knowledge’s 

position would leave the CCB powerless 

to fulfill that statutory authority. The 

implementing regulations provide 

extensive safeguards against defaults 

and give a respondent the opportunity 

to oppose the claimant’s testimony upon 

default. 

Engine suggested that the Office 

should ‘‘require the CCB to consider 

common defenses (such as 

noninfringement, innocent 

infringement, fair use, and licensure) 

sua sponte in each case, including 

before entering a default judgment and 

awarding damages.’’ 47 In the default 

context, that comment is broadly 

consistent with the proposed rule that 

‘‘the Board shall consider whether the 

respondent has a meritorious 

defense.’’ 48 In contrast, Copyright 

Alliance et al. urged the CCB to refrain 

from invoking any defenses on behalf of 

defaulted respondents, stating, ‘‘the 

Office must recognize a clear distinction 

between permitting CCAs [Copyright 

Claims Attorneys] to assist parties in 

properly articulating their own legal 

arguments versus allowing the Board or 

the CCAs to provide legal advice to the 

parties or invoke arguments and 

defenses on their behalf, essentially 

becoming advocates for one party.’’ 49

Copyright Alliance et al. further 

contended that the CASE Act provision 

regarding defaults ‘‘does not include 

raising a defense that has not been 

properly raised by a respondent.’’ 50

However, the statute is not so absolute. 

Moreover, Federal courts are permitted 

to deny judgments in a plaintiff’s favor 

on default when a meritorious defense 

is present,51 and the legislative history 

indicates that the CCB ‘‘has both more 

statutory authority and a greater 

obligation to scrutinize the merits of a 

claim’’ 52 when default is sought. ‘‘In 

cases where the respondent is absent, 

the Board is expected to carefully 

scrutinize the available evidence . . . 

and consider applicable affirmative 

defenses such as fair use, where 

warranted by the circumstances of the 

case.’’ 53 Furthermore, the statute 

requires that the CCB only issue relief 

after a default if the claimant’s 

submissions ‘‘are sufficient to support a 

finding in favor of the claimant under 

applicable law.’’ 54 By definition, if 

there is a clear defense to the case on 

the face of the submissions, there cannot 

be evidence sufficient to support a 

finding for the claimant. The Office is 

mindful that the CCB must maintain 

impartiality, as Copyright Alliance et al. 

insists,55 but that does not preclude it 

from requiring claimants to show that 

their claims can withstand relevant 

defenses present on the face of the 

claims. AIPLA proposed that, if the CCB 

determines that a defaulting respondent 

has a meritorious defense, the rules 

should permit the claimant to submit 

evidence relevant to the defense.56 The 

Office has implemented this suggestion 

and, under the final rule, before the CCB 

finds for a defaulting respondent, it will 

provide the claimant with a tentative 

ruling and an opportunity to address it, 

including through the submission of 

further evidence. 

b. Failure To Prosecute 

The Copyright Alliance et al. observed 

that the proposed regulations allow 

respondents to cure default after 

‘‘multiple missed deadlines,’’ but have 

no equivalent provision for claimants to 

cure a failure to prosecute.57 The Office 

agrees that a similar procedure should 

be included for a claimant’s failure to 

prosecute and has added this to the final 

rule. 

4. Bad-Faith Conduct 

Parties and their representatives 

appearing before the CCB who engage in 

bad-faith conduct may be required to 

pay an award of reasonable costs and 

attorney’s fees.58 Upon repeated badfaith acts in CCB proceedings, parties 

and their representatives may be barred 

from participating in further 

proceedings for a year and have pending 

proceedings dismissed.59 The proposed 

rule set forth procedures for the CCB to 

address bad faith sua sponte or upon a 

party’s allegations, providing 

opportunities for the accused to respond 

in writing and at a conference. 

Commenters supported the proposed 

regulation on bad-faith conduct. For 

instance, ‘‘SFWA strongly supports the 

[Office’s] proposed rules in section 

232.3, which go a considerable way to 

protecting writers and legitimate 

publishers from being preyed upon by 

unscrupulous copyright trolls who file 

meritless claims and counterclaims 

falsely asserting that they represent the 

true owner of the copyright.’’ 60 Several 

commenters specifically approved the 

provision allowing the CCB to 

temporarily bar those who repeatedly 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30064 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

61Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 17–18 (‘‘This is an important 

mechanism for protecting claimants and 

respondents from attorneys whose previous history 

of bad-faith conduct might put them in jeopardy.’’); 

Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 3 (‘‘Amazon 

supports the Proposed Rule. In particular, Amazon 

believes the Office’s suggestion for a historical 

review of the accused party’s past legal claims is 

crucial.’’); SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 3 

(‘‘SFWA also agrees with AIPLA on the proposal to 

bar attorneys who have engaged in bad-faith 

conduct from representing parties before the CCB 

for the specified time periods.’’); see 86 FR 69890, 

69916–17 (proposed 37 CFR 232.4). 

62Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 16; see also SFWA Reply NPRM 

Comments at 3 (approving Copyright Alliance et 

al.’s proposed definition of bad-faith conduct); see, 

e.g., Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 8 (‘‘[I]t is 

important to recognize that a substantial portion of 

abusive intellectual property assertion occurs 

through demand letters that are sent before any 

complaint is filed.’’). 

63Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 18; see 86 FR 69890, 69916 (proposed 

37 CFR 232.4(a)). 

64Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 18; see 86 FR 69890, 69916 (proposed 

37 CFR 232.4(d)). 

65Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 17. 

66See generally Verizon Initial NPRM Comments 

at 1 (anticipating that participants ‘‘will inevitably 

seek creative ways to abuse the CCB processes’’). 

67Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 17. 

68See 86 FR 69890, 69916 (proposed 37 CFR 

232.3(b)). 

69Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 17. 

70See 86 FR at 69916 (proposed 37 CFR 232.3(b)– 

(c)). 

71Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 3–4 

(referring to proposed 37 CFR 232.4(c)); id. at add. 

at A–38. 

72 Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 1–2. 

73 Id. at 2. 

74 17 U.S.C. 1506(y)(3). 

75 Id. at 1506(y)(2). 

76 86 FR 69890, 69894. 

77AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2; Verizon 

Initial NPRM Comments at 2; SFWA Reply NPRM 

Comments at 3. 

78 17 U.S.C. 1503(a)(1)(I), 1506(b). 

79See Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 3 n.8 

(‘‘the Office should clarify’’ whether the page limit 

is for single- or double-spaced filings); id. at add. 

at A–24; Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 

4 (recommending extending the timeline to 

respond). 

80 17 U.S.C. 1504(g). 

81H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 31; see 86 FR 69890, 

69917 (proposed 37 CFR 233.2(a)) (prescribing rules 

pertaining to maximum number of CCB proceedings 

filed by a party). 

82 86 FR 69890, 69917 (proposed 37 CFR 

233.2(a)). 

83 Id. at 69896. 

act in bad faith from participating in 

further proceedings.61

The Copyright Alliance et al. 

proposed that the definition of ‘‘badfaith conduct’’ should be explicit that it 

encompasses any action taken in 

support of a claim, counterclaim, or 

defense.62 The Office adopts this 

suggestion in the final rule. The Office 

also adopts Copyright Alliance et al.’s 

proposal to add the term ‘‘before the 

CCB’’ to the final rule, to make clear that 

its penalties apply to those who 

repeatedly act in bad faith before the 

CCB, and not necessarily elsewhere.63

The Office also agrees with, and adopts, 

the Copyright Alliance et al.’s 

suggestion to clarify in the final rule 

that the penalties for repeated acts of 

bad faith may include a bar to not only 

‘‘initiating proceedings,’’ but also 

‘‘participating’’ in any capacity.64

The Copyright Alliance et al. also 

commented that ‘‘the regulations should 

clearly articulate what is necessary to 

constitute a showing of bad-faith 

conduct.’’ 65 The Office does not 

consider the suggestion practical, as it 

cannot now anticipate every form in 

which misconduct may manifest itself 

in a CCB proceeding, and the CCB’s 

ability to respond to such misconduct 

should be in its discretion.66 Instead, 

the CCB Handbook will provide 

illustrative examples of bad-faith 

conduct to help participants avoid such 

conduct. 

The Copyright Alliance et al. urged 

that ‘‘anyone accused of bad-faith 

conduct before the CCB should be 

notified of such accusation and given an 

opportunity to explain and defend their 

actions before a finding of bad-faith 

conduct is officially made and 

recorded.’’ 67 The proposed rule (and 

the final regulation) expressly provides 

an opportunity for parties and 

representatives accused of bad-faith 

conduct to respond, whether the 

accusation comes from another party or 

the CCB on its own initiative.68

Copyright Alliance et al. expressed 

concern over whether that opportunity 

would be available if ‘‘the proceeding 

does not mature into an active case 

before the Board, or the case has 

otherwise been dismissed.’’ 69 Whether 

before, during, or after an active 

proceeding, an accusation of bad faith 

will trigger an opportunity to respond.70

Amazon approved of the proposed 

regulation allowing the CCB to consider 

prior bad acts when assessing bad faith 

conduct and proposed that the rule 

should go further and mandate such 

consideration.71 The CCB will have the 

discretion to consider the relevant 

indicia of bad faith as it may arise. The 

Office does not believe it is appropriate 

to determine in advance what it must 

consider in any particular case. 

Verizon suggested that the penalty of 

barring a party or representative who 

has acted in bad faith from initiating 

claims for a year, ‘‘while a good start, is 

not sufficient. Such a rule may send the 

wrong message that a party is free to act 

in bad faith at least once a year with no 

consequences.’’ 72 Verizon proposed 

stronger ‘‘consequences up to and 

including, a ban on all future 

participation at the CCB.’’ 73 The CASE 

Act prescribes the penalty available for 

a bad faith determination.74 Moreover, 

the Office does not agree that parties are 

‘‘free to act in bad faith at least once a 

year,’’ because other penalties, 

including the awarding of attorney’s 

fees, are available to the CCB to impose 

after even a single act of misconduct.75

The NPRM included a request for 

comments on whether the Office should 

publish a list of bad-faith actors barred 

from CCB proceedings, but the proposed 

rule did not include such a list ‘‘because 

the Office believes that such a list 

would be unduly harsh, especially for 

non-attorneys.’’ 76 Several commenters 

advocated for this,77 but the Office 

remains wary of the impact of a public 

bad-faith list and does not consider it 

necessary at this time. The 

determinations of the CCB will be 

available to the public,78 and the eCCB 

will allow for searches of information 

about parties and attorneys appearing 

before the CCB, including any orders 

related to bad faith. 

Finally, a few commenters raised 

specific concerns about the formatting 

and timing of filings raising or 

responding to assertions of bad faith.79

The Office addresses these comments in 

the final rule as part of a broader 

revision of the regulations addressing 

the procedures for filing requests before 

the CCB, discussed below. These 

revisions specify the formatting and 

timing of party submissions to establish 

consistency and streamline the 

proceedings. 

C. Management of Proceedings 

1. Limitations on Proceedings 

The Office is authorized to limit ‘‘the 

permitted number of proceedings each 

year by the same claimant . . . in the 

interests of justice and the 

administration of the Copyright Claims 

Board.’’ 80 Congress explained that this 

power ‘‘functions as both a docket 

management tool for the Board and as 

protection against abusive conduct.’’ 81

In the NPRM, the Office proposed 

limiting claimants to 10 proceedings 

filed in any 12-month period, and to 

limit private attorneys or law firms 

representing claimants to 40 

proceedings in any 12-month period.82

The Office invited comments ‘‘as to 

whether these limitations strike the 

proper balance between the interests of 

the parties and the efficient 

management of the CCB’s work.’’ 83


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30065 

84Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 7. 

85 Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 1. The 

Office notes that under the final rule, actions taken 

to circumvent the limit may be subject to penalties 

as bad-faith conduct. See 86 FR 69890, 69917 

(proposed 37 CFR 233.2(b)). 

86SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 3. 

87Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 10. The Copyright Alliance et al. also 

suggested a higher limit should be applied to 

‘‘smaller claims.’’ Id. The Office will not set a 

separate case filing limit for smaller claims at this 

time, but will monitor the CCB’s experience with 

smaller claims to determine if any future changes 

are needed. 

88 37 CFR 224.1(c). 

89Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 10. 

90 Id. at 11. 

91AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

92 Id. at 3. 

93 17 U.S.C. 1506(f)(3)(C). 

94 Id. at 1510(a)(1). 

95 Id. 

96See S. Rep. No. 116–105, at 8. 

97U.S. Courts, Just the Facts: Intellectual Property 

Cases—Patent, Copyright, and Trademark (Feb. 13, 

2020), https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/02/13/ 

just-facts-intellectual-property-cases-patentcopyright-and-trademark. 

98See Copyright Small Claims at 8–9 (‘‘[T]he 

number of infringement actions actually filed in 

federal court likely significantly underrepresents 

the number of cases that copyright owners would 

choose to bring if they were able.’’). 

99 17 U.S.C. 1510(a)(1). 

100AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

Multiple commenters commended the 

proposed regulation. Engine 

commented, ‘‘[w]e strongly support the 

Office’s attention to trying to prevent 

abuse of the CCB process, and 

appreciate the proposal to cap the 

number of CCB proceedings that a party 

may bring in any twelve-month period 

to ten cases. This rule, and the limit on 

private attorneys and law firms 

representing claimants in no more than 

forty CCB proceedings in any twelvemonth period, are useful ideas to help 

curb abuse of the CCB.’’ 84 Verizon also 

expressed its support, stating, ‘‘[w]e 

commend the Office for their 

commitment to prevent abuse,’’ and 

cautioning that ‘‘bad actors could 

circumvent the yearly case cap 

[through] multiple corporate structures 

designed to handle smaller batches of 

cases.’’ 85

Some commenters supported the 

imposition of limitations, but disagreed 

with certain aspects of the Office’s 

proposed rule. For example, while 

SFWA supported limitations on the 

number of actions each year, it took the 

position that it would be unfair to count 

cases where a respondent opted out.86

The Copyright Alliance et al. also 

argued that the limits should only apply 

to active proceedings.87

The Office understands why 

commenters suggested that case limits 

be restricted only to active cases, but it 

finds the suggestion impractical. While 

active proceedings require more of the 

CCB’s resources, every new claim 

requires the CCB’s compliance review. 

This compliance review process 

requires several steps, including 

possible communication with the 

claimant before the claim is approved 

for service.88

Further, a limitation on the number of 

filed claims is more easily managed. At 

the time of filing, it is impossible to 

determine when or if the case may 

become active. Some cases may become 

active several months after they are 

filed. A limitation on only active 

proceedings would leave claimants and 

attorneys in limbo during this time 

regarding whether they have met their 

filing limit. By contrast, Copyright 

Claims Attorneys, parties, and 

representatives will be able to readily 

determine how many claims a party or 

attorney has filed in the preceding year 

by conducting a search on eCCB. 

To address commenters’ concern that 

a claimant’s limit may be exhausted 

without a single proceeding becoming 

active, the Office has raised the number 

of cases that may be filed by each 

claimant per year. The final rule raises 

the limit to 30 proceedings in a 12- 

month period. The Copyright Alliance 

et al. commented that, because 

respondents can opt out, the 10- 

proceeding limit could ‘‘prevent a 

claimant that has never had a single 

case heard by the Board from bringing 

additional cases for the remainder of the 

year.’’ 89 Raising the limit will not 

eliminate that possibility, but it will 

create many more opportunities for 

claims to be resolved on the merits by 

CCB determinations. 

Some commenters, while supporting 

the limits on a claimant’s filings, 

challenged the authority of the Office to 

limit the number of cases filed by 

attorneys, as compared to claimants. 

The Copyright Alliance et al. argued 

that ‘‘the Office lacks the authority to 

establish a limitation on the number of 

cases filed by attorneys.’’ 90 AIPLA 

commented that the limits on attorneys 

and law firms are ‘‘inappropriate’’ 

because, among other reasons, they 

‘‘would impair claimants’ ability to 

retain counsel of their choice.’’ 91 AIPLA 

proposed that the limit on counsel, if 

imposed, should be ‘‘applied on a perattorney, not per-firm, basis.’’ 92

Several sections of the CASE Act 

authorize the Office and the CCB to 

limit the number of claims both to avoid 

abusive conduct and to ensure the CCB 

can operate in a timely and efficient 

manner. For example, the Act provides 

the CCB the authority to dismiss claims 

if the number or complexity of the 

claims exceed what ‘‘the Copyright 

Claims Board could reasonably 

administer.’’ 93 In another part of the 

Act, the Register is directed to issue 

regulations that will ‘‘provide for the 

efficient administration of the Copyright 

Claims Board, and for the ability of the 

Copyright Claims Board to timely 

complete proceedings.’’ 94 The statute 

expressly contemplates that the Register 

will adopt ‘‘mechanisms to prevent 

harassing or improper use of the 

Copyright Claims Board by any party’’ 95

and the CASE Act’s legislative history 

notes the risk of abuse by vexatious 

claimants.96 In promulgating these 

rules, the Office has given this topic 

close attention. 

The Office believes that these stated 

goals of the CASE Act are best served by 

imposing reasonable limits on the 

number of proceedings that both 

claimants and counsel may bring. These 

limits will minimize the potential for 

abusive behavior—which can occur 

either by a party or counsel—and will 

ensure that the CCB can manage and 

conduct its proceedings effectively. 

Thousands of copyright infringement 

lawsuits are filed in Federal court each 

year, with the 6,209 filed in 2018 setting 

a new record.97 The Office expects that 

a portion of those litigation matters will 

instead be filed as claims in the CCB 

once it commences operations, and that 

copyright owners heretofore dissuaded 

from enforcement by the prohibitive 

costs of litigation will bring additional 

claims before the CCB.98 Permitting a 

handful of claimants or attorneys to 

monopolize the CCB’s resources with 

multiple filings would deny others the 

equitable opportunity to advance 

claims. Setting limits promotes the 

‘‘efficient administration’’ of the CCB,99

within the meaning of the statute, 

because it will maximize the number of 

claimants to whom the CCB can provide 

services. The Office is not persuaded 

otherwise by AIPLA’s comment that 

limitations on counsel ‘‘would impair 

claimants’ ability to retain counsel of 

their choice.’’ 100 The CCB is an 

extension, not a contraction, of available 

tribunals for certain copyright claims. 

The right to retain counsel does not 

confer a right for that chosen counsel to 

appear in every forum. The Office 

therefore does not believe the limitation 

impinges on the right to choose counsel. 

A claimant set on working with an 

attorney or law firm that has reached the 

annual maximum will be free to bring 

the claim instead in a Federal court or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30066 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

101The statute distinguishes ‘‘an attorney’’ who 

may represent a party from ‘‘a law student’’ who 

may do so instead. 17 U.S.C. 1506(d). Accordingly, 

the limitation on parties and attorneys does not 

apply to law students, law clinics, or pro bono legal 

services organization with a connection to the 

participating law student’s law school. 

102AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

103 Id. at 3. 

104Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 11. 

105MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 2– 

3; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 8, 9; Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 

2. 

106SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 4. 

107See 86 FR 69890, 69890 (noting the Office’s 

decision to not adopt Rules 19 and 20 of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure). 

108 17 U.S.C. 1506(m). 

109See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 11, 12, 25, 50, 56, 59, 

60, 62.1. 

110 17 U.S.C. 1506(m)(1). 

111Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

112Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 9; see also Sergey Vernyuk Initial 

NPRM Comments at 2 (proposing consistent 

formatting requirements for documents prepared for 

submission to the CCB). 

113Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 20 (discussing proposed 37 CFR 

225.1(b)). 114See 86 FR 69890, 69905 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.11). 115Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 6; SFWA 

Reply NPRM Comments at 4. Amazon proposed 

adding language to the regulation that would make 

explicit that a party may seek the CCB’s leave for 

‘‘amendments after the opt-out period has expired.’’ 

Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at add. at A–4. 

The Office sees no need for revision because that 

was already the effect of the proposed regulation. 

See 86 FR 69890, 69905 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.11(d)). 

wait until the attorney can file the case 

before the CCB at a future time.101

AIPLA also raised a concern that 

‘‘enforcement of such a limit [on 

representatives] could unduly prejudice 

innocent claimants. . . . [C]laimants 

who pay the filing fee and file 

proceedings that count against their 

limit should not have their claims 

dismissed or rejected because a lawyer 

or firm exceeded its limit. Rather, the 

CCB could require withdrawal or 

substitution of counsel.’’ 102 The Office 

agrees, and articulates a procedure in 

the final regulation in which, if an 

attorney or law firm files a new claim 

that exceeds its limit, that attorney or 

law firm must withdraw. The CCB may 

then issue a stay of proceedings for 60 

days to allow the claimant to find 

substitute counsel or proceed pro se, 

which may be extended for good cause. 

The final rule also provides that a claim 

that exceeds a claimant’s limit will be 

dismissed without prejudice. 

AIPLA commented that ‘‘[a] firm with 

hundreds of attorneys should not be 

subject to the same limit as a sole 

practitioner,’’ 103 and Copyright Alliance 

et al. commented that the limit on 

attorneys and law firms ‘‘fails to account 

for the variation in size from one firm 

to another (for example, an international 

law firm employing thousands of 

attorneys should be permitted to bring 

far more than 40 cases annually).’’ 104

After considering the comments 

regarding the proposed limitations, the 

Office has made adjustments in the final 

rule. The Office is increasing the limit 

on law firms to 80 filed proceedings in 

a 12-month period, while maintaining 

the limit of 40 per attorney. 

Finally, the Office understands that it 

may benefit from the experience of 

seeing how these limitations on parties, 

attorneys, and firms work in practice. 

Accordingly, the Office will review and 

revisit the propriety of all limitations set 

for the number of filings permitted by 

parties, attorneys, and firms as 

necessary after seeing the types of 

filings it receives and considering the 

CCB’s workload. 

2. Applicability of Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and Federal Rules of 

Evidence 

Some commenters criticized the 

proposed rule as too closely modeled on 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

the Federal Rules of Evidence.105 SFWA 

asserted that ‘‘it is imperative that the 

proposed rules grant more flexibility 

than the Federal Rules of Evidence and 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

particularly in light of the number of 

non-lawyers who can be expected to 

represent themselves in CCB 

claims.’’ 106 This continues to be a goal 

of the Office as well. The Office drafted 

the CCB’s procedures to be considerably 

more flexible, accessible, and 

permissive than in Federal court.107 The 

Office has reviewed the proposed rules 

in light of the comments about 

complexity and made further changes to 

tailor them to the needs of CCB parties, 

including removing all references to the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the 

Federal Rules of Evidence apart from 

stating that the CCB is not bound by 

those rules. 

3. Written Requests and Other Filings 

While the CASE Act generally 

prohibits the ‘‘formal motion 

practice’’ 108 that is at the heart of 

Federal civil procedure,109 parties may 

‘‘make requests to the Copyright Claims 

Board to address case management and 

discovery issues.’’ 110 Commenters 

proposed that the CCB streamline and 

make the form of such requests more 

consistent. The Authors Guild advised 

against ‘‘unnecessary formatting 

requirements, such as page limits, font, 

and indent sizes,’’ and recommended 

word limits instead.111 Copyright 

Alliance et al. suggested that the Office 

‘‘focus on consistency,’’ setting a single 

formatting requirement for all party 

submissions, with each limited to either 

5, 10, or 15 pages, and with the 

timelines for submissions plainly set 

forth.112 In response to these comments, 

the Office has revised the regulations 

governing the formatting and timing of 

party submissions. 

The final rule streamlines written 

requests by the parties into three tiers, 

with the majority falling under the first 

two tiers, which simply require use of 

a fillable form on eCCB subject to a 

character limit. All requests in tier one 

will be subject to a 4,000 character limit 

with a 7-day response time, and all 

party requests in tier two will be 

submitted through a 10,000 character 

limit with a 14-day response time. 

Accordingly, participants in eCCB 

proceedings will not have to worry 

about page limits, fonts, formatting, or 

different response times for the majority 

of requests and responses. Tier three is 

for more substantial written 

submissions (for example, party 

statements), which will also be 

uploaded to eCCB. With respect to tier 

three submissions, the Office has made 

changes to standardize the formatting, 

page limits, and response times in the 

final rule, where possible. 

4. Scheduling Order 

Under the proposed rule, requests to 

modify a proceeding’s scheduling order 

could be made orally or by letter and an 

objecting party would have three days to 

file a response after service of a letter 

request. However, the rule was silent 

about the timing of a response to an oral 

request, and Copyright Alliance et al. 

requested clarification.113 When an oral 

request is made at a hearing or 

conference, any other party may 

respond orally at that time or request a 

reasonable amount of time to submit a 

written response. In the final rule, any 

written submissions related to 

modification of the scheduling order 

will fall into the fillable form tier 

system. 

5. Amending Claims and Counterclaims 

Under the proposed rule, amended 

claims or counterclaims would be 

subject to compliance review by a 

Copyright Claims Attorney, and 

amending a claim after service would be 

prohibited without leave of the CCB.114

The only comments to address this rule 

supported it.115 In the final rule, the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30067 

116 86 FR 69890, 69905–06 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.12). 

117 Id. at 69897. 

118 Id. 

119Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

120AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3; SFWA 

Reply NPRM Comments at 4. See 17 U.S.C. 

1504(e)(1)(A)(ii) (caps on statutory damages for 

infringement claims per work infringed); id. at 

1504(e)(1)(D) (cap on total damages per proceeding). 

121See supra note 18. 

122 17 U.S.C. 1504(c)(6). 

123See Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 

3. 

124See SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 5 (‘‘[W]e 

believe the proposed rules are sensible and 

straightforward.’’); AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments 

at 3 (‘‘We commend the Office’s desire to encourage 

voluntary settlement.’’). 

125 86 FR 69890, 69898. 

126AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

127Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 19. 

128 86 FR 69890, 69907 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.17(a)). 

129 Id. at 69898. 

130SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 5. 

131 Verizon Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

Office is also prohibiting amendments 

to claims during the opt-out period. The 

Office believes that allowing claim 

amendments during the opt-out period 

would require additional compliance 

review and service, and cause undue 

administrative difficulty, delay, and 

burdens on respondents. 

In the final rule, written submissions 

related to requests for leave to amend 

claims will fall into the fillable form tier 

system. The final rule also clarifies that 

a claim or counterclaim may be freely 

amended if it is found to be 

noncompliant as part of the Board’s 

compliance review. However, if a 

request for leave to amend is granted, 

then the pleading may only be amended 

as identified in the request. 

6. Consolidation and Severance 

The NPRM proposed that proceedings 

that involve the same parties or arise out 

of the same facts and circumstances may 

be consolidated for purposes of 

conducting discovery, submitting 

evidence, or holding hearings, but not 

for purposes of CCB determinations and 

any damages award.116 Regarding 

severance, the NPRM noted that in 

ordinary circumstances, Copyright 

Claims Attorneys likely will be able to 

identify during their compliance review 

instances where multiple claims 

involving disparate facts and 

circumstances have been asserted, and 

can require that the claimant separate 

out these unrelated claims.117 However, 

the Office also proposed a rule 

permitting the CCB to sever proceedings 

with respect to some or all parties, 

claims, and issues where it becomes 

evident that a proceeding includes 

distinct claims involving disparate facts 

and circumstances that would be 

inappropriate to resolve in a single 

proceeding.118

Commenters expressed concern about 

these provisions. The Authors Guild 

cautioned that pro se parties might not 

know how to respond to a request to 

sever or consolidate proceedings, and 

urged that claims be consolidated or 

severed only by authority of the CCB.119

AIPLA and SFWA expressed concerns 

about the impact that severance and 

consolidation would have on the CASE 

Act’s caps on damages.120 In light of 

these comments and concerns expressed 

by commenters cautioning against 

perceived complexities in the proposed 

rules as a whole,121 and following a 

review of the statutory framework 

regarding consolidation and severance, 

the Office has concluded that the 

proposed rule is redundant in light of 

other provisions in the statute. 

The CASE Act prohibits a claimant 

from combining more than one claim in 

a single proceeding unless all of the 

claims ‘‘arise out of the same allegedly 

infringing activity or continuous course 

of infringing activities and do not, in the 

aggregate, result in the recovery of such 

claim or claims for damages that exceed 

the [CASE Act’s monetary damages] 

limitations.’’ 122 Hence, a proceeding 

initiated by a claimant that includes 

multiple claims involving disparate 

facts and circumstances would not 

survive compliance review, and the 

claimant would be required to file 

separate proceedings for each of the 

claims. Because the statute already 

provides a mechanism to address the 

issues that the proposed rule on 

severance would have addressed, the 

final rule does not include such a 

provision. 

In contrast, the provision permitting 

consolidation will permit the CCB to 

achieve efficiencies in managing 

multiple proceedings filed by a claimant 

against the same respondent when those 

proceedings arise out of the same facts 

and circumstances. In such cases, the 

CCB may consolidate matters such as 

discovery, the submission of evidence, 

and hearings, while rendering separate 

determinations for each proceeding. 

Because consolidation only combines 

certain procedural steps and does not 

actually join the claims into a single 

proceeding, the existing caps on 

damages for each proceeding will 

continue to apply. The Office is mindful 

of the concern expressed by the Authors 

Guild that pro se parties may not know 

how to respond to a request to sever or 

consolidate proceedings 123 and, 

consistent with the Authors Guild’s 

recommendation, has retained the 

language reserving the authority to 

consolidate proceedings to the CCB. 

7. Settlement 

Commenters generally supported the 

proposed rule on settlement 

conferences,124 while proposing certain 

procedural and textual amendments. 

The NPRM requested comments 

concerning the role of the Copyright 

Claims Officer who presides over a 

settlement conference, specifically 

concerning that Officer’s role in a final 

determination.125 AIPLA commented, 

‘‘parties are more likely to participate in 

settlement discussions if the Officer 

presiding over the settlement conference 

is not deciding the merits. We believe 

the Office’s proposed structure, in 

which the Officer presiding over 

settlement discussions is recused from 

the final decision except to break a tie, 

is permitted under the plain language of 

the statute.’’ 126 Copyright Alliance et al. 

favored the proposal that the presiding 

settlement Officer would serve only as 

a tiebreaker in the final determination, 

adding that the ‘‘Officer should be 

permitted to review the record and sit 

in on hearings, etc., but should not be 

permitted to actively participate in the 

discussions in any manner that might 

influence the independence of the 

remaining two Officers.’’ 127 The Office 

agrees, and the final rule incorporates 

the commenters’ suggestions. The final 

rule provides for the recusal of the 

Officer who presides over a settlement 

conference unless required as a 

tiebreaker in the final determination. 

The proposed rule provided that the 

CCB ‘‘shall encourage voluntary 

settlement between the parties of any 

claims or counterclaims,’’ 128 and the 

Office solicited comments ‘‘on whether 

the CCB should be able to order a 

settlement conference where it sees a 

possible benefit to holding a conference 

even where one or more parties 

object.’’ 129 SFWA cautioned against 

‘‘mandating settlement conferences 

where there is extreme animosity or a 

significant power imbalance between 

parties.’’ 130 Verizon urged that the 

settlement process should ‘‘be done on 

a fully voluntary and mutually agreeable 

basis,’’ and ‘‘urge[d] the Office to 

exercise caution regarding the notion of 

‘encouraging’ settlements to ensure the 

CCB process is not converted from an 

adjudicatory body into a settlement 

collection process.’’ 131 The legislative 

history is explicit that the CASE Act 

‘‘reflects an intent to encourage 

compromise and settlement’’ and is 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30068 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

132H.R. Rep. No. 116–252, at 24. 

133AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

134 17 U.S.C. 1503(a)(1)(F), 1506(r)(1)(A); see also 

id. at 1502(b)(3)(A)(iii) (requiring that one 

Copyright Claims Officer shall have experience in 

alternative dispute resolution). 

135 86 FR 69890, 69907–08 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.17(d)). 

136Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

137 17 U.S.C. 1506(t)(3). 

138 86 FR 69899. 

139 Id. 

140Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 22. 

141Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

142 86 FR 69890, 69915 (proposed 37 CFR 

229.1(c)). 

143Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 1. 

144AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

145Amazon commented, ‘‘[t]he Office’s proposed 

mechanisms, including standardized discovery 

requests and limitations on the production of 

electronically stored information (‘ESI’), will 

promote an efficient and inexpensive discovery 

process in CCB proceedings. . . . Amazon strongly 

supports the use of CCB-issued interrogatories and 

document requests, and limited requests for 

admissions.’’ Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4 

(footnote omitted). The Authors Guild, 

‘‘applaud[ed] the use of standard forms for 

discovery requests’’ and ‘‘strongly agree[d] with the 

use of standard interrogatories and standard 

document requests.’’ Authors Guild Initial NPRM 

Comments at 4. SFWA ‘‘strongly approve[d] of 

standardized interrogatories and RFPs.’’ SFWA 

Reply NPRM Comments at 6. 

146Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 5. 

147MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 5. 

148Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 15. 

149Copyright Small Claims at 103. 

150As the Office previously stated, ‘‘[a]ny system 

to adjudicate small claims must grapple with the 

nature and amount of discovery to be 

permitted. . . . [T]he broad availability of 

discovery and related frustration of discoveryrelated disputes are significant factors in the timing 

and expense of federal litigation. At the same time, 

it is difficult to resolve a dispute fairly without 

access to relevant information.’’ Id. at 124. 

‘‘designed to promote compromise.’’ 132

Indeed, AIPLA specifically 

‘‘commend[ed] the Office’s desire to 

encourage voluntary settlement.’’ 133

Nevertheless, mindful of commenters’ 

concerns, the Office is modifying the 

rule’s text to state that the CCB shall 

‘‘facilitate,’’ and not ‘‘encourage,’’ 

settlement. This is consistent with the 

statutory text, under which facilitating 

settlement is one of the Copyright 

Claims Officers’ express functions.134

Under the proposed rule, before 

parties participate in a settlement 

conference, they are required to email 

their position statements to the 

presiding Copyright Claims Officer and, 

if the parties agree, the parties shall 

‘‘serve’’ their statements on the other 

participating parties.135 Upon a 

suggestion by the Authors Guild,136 the 

Office changes the language of the 

provision from ‘‘serve’’ to ‘‘send,’’ to 

clarify that formal service is not 

required when the parties exchange 

settlement statements. 

8. Records and Publication 

The CCB’s final determinations will 

be made available on a publiclyaccessible website, and the statute 

directs the Office to establish 

regulations related to the publication of 

other records and information.137 As 

stated in the NPRM, the ‘‘proposed rule 

seeks to balance public access with the 

confidentiality interests of the 

parties.’’ 138

The NPRM also noted that the CCB 

will generally create hearing transcripts 

through ‘‘standard speech to text 

transcript technology that is available 

with the CCB’s videoconferencing 

system,’’ and invited comments on 

‘‘whether such informal raw transcripts, 

which may contain various errors, 

should be added to the official 

record.’’ 139 The Copyright Alliance et 

al. commented ‘‘that hearing transcripts 

should not be made public as a part of 

the official record.’’ 140 Sergey Vernyuk 

favored making the transcripts available 

to promote transparency.141 At this 

time, the Office does not believe that 

publishing the uncorrected transcripts is 

advisable, given the potential for errors, 

although the parties will have the ability 

to request and pay for an official 

reporter. The Office may reevaluate this 

position over time based on further 

experience and review of the 

transcripts. 

The final rule limits attendance at 

hearings to the parties and their 

representatives, except with leave of the 

CCB.142 While Sergey Vernyuk 

proposed making hearings open to the 

public by default and ‘‘seal[ed]’’ only 

with leave,143 the Office is concerned 

that the virtual nature of CCB 

proceedings may pose technological or 

security concerns if they are fully open 

to the public. The Office will consider 

reevaluating the issue in the future. 

D. Discovery and Evidence 

In the NPRM, the Office proposed a 

discovery process intended to be a 

streamlined, easy-to-use system that 

offered standardized discovery requests. 

Several commenters supported the 

Office’s proposed system of 

standardized discovery. For example, 

AIPLA wrote that it ‘‘believes that the 

proposed approach to written discovery 

is sound and supports the establishment 

of standard interrogatories and 

document requests. . . . These 

procedures will go a long way towards 

making discovery manageable for pro se 

claimants and respondents.’’ 144

Amazon, the Authors Guild, and SFWA 

all submitted similar comments 

supporting the Office’s proposed use of 

limited, standardized discovery.145

Engine added that the ‘‘CCB-issued 

interrogatories and document requests 

. . . go some way towards addressing 

our concerns about the early disclosure 

of relevant evidence and combatting 

discovery abuse.’’ 146

Some commenters considered the 

scope of discovery too broad under the 

proposed regulations. MPA and RIAA 

commented that, if the CASE Act is 

‘‘implemented without significant 

cabining, the discovery rules for CCB 

would result in significant burdens for 

litigants to propound, respond to, and 

dispute discovery, overwhelming the 

amount in dispute, undermining the 

effectiveness of the system, and leading 

both potential claimants and 

respondents to opt out.’’ 147 Copyright 

Alliance et al. stated that ‘‘the discovery 

process should be limited by requiring 

that all discovery requests, including 

requests for production of documents, 

be: (i) Narrowly targeted; (ii) highly 

likely to result in the production of 

evidence that is directly relevant to the 

claims and defenses; and (iii) serve the 

goal of efficient resolution of the case in 

light of the nature of the claims and 

defenses and the amount in dispute.’’ 148

The Office has carefully reviewed its 

proposed regulations with these 

comments in mind. It has made changes 

to the regulations regarding 

interrogatories and document requests 

to ensure that the scope of allowed 

discovery is not overly extensive. The 

Office believes that the final rule 

provides for a discovery process that is 

properly tailored to assist in resolving 

claims before the CCB, and is 

substantially narrower than what the 

Federal rules allow. In addition, on a 

case-by-case basis, parties will need to 

show good cause to conduct additional 

discovery. Moreover, a party concerned 

that the scope of discovery is too broad 

may raise the issue during the prediscovery conference held in each case, 

identifying any of the standard requests 

that may be overly burdensome or not 

relevant. 

When the Office proposed a smallclaims system for copyright, it suggested 

that ‘‘the parties likely will not have 

access to extensive discovery and will 

instead be limited to presenting the 

most critical evidence. Cases will be 

developed using abbreviated 

procedures, in shorter time frames, in 

order to simplify and speed the 

process.’’ 149 The Office believes that the 

proposed regulations serve this vision. It 

has endeavored to establish a process 

that, while streamlined, is also just.150

Commenters generally recognized this 

important balance, and as stated above, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30069 

151See, e.g., Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 6 

(‘‘efforts to streamline the discovery process . . . 

[should] not come at the expense of parties gaining 

access to the information they need to make their 

case’’). 

152Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 4 

(discussing proposed 37 CFR 225.2(f) & 225.4(f)(4)). 

153 86 FR 69890, 69912 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.4(f)(5)). 

154Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

155AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 4 

(discussing proposed 37 CFR 225.5(a)); see 86 FR 

69890, 69912. 

156Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

157Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4, add. at 

A–15. 

158See 86 FR 69890, 69908 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.18(a)) (noting that protective orders only apply 

‘‘[a]t the request of any party’’). 

159Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4 n.19, 

add. at A–12. 

160 Id. at add. at A–13. 

161Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 20. 

162See AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 4; 

Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4; Authors 

Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 4; Engine Initial 

NPRM Comments at 5; SFWA Reply NPRM 

Comments at 6. 

163SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 6. 

164Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 5. 

supported the idea of standardized 

discovery.151

Standardized discovery has the key 

benefit of reducing the burden on 

parties to develop their own discovery 

requests, particularly for those parties 

appearing pro se. At the same time, it 

must be broad enough to capture 

common issues that will arise in the 

majority of proceedings. But that does 

not mean that all such requests are 

appropriate for every claim, and 

additional limitations on the scope of 

discovery may be called for in some 

circumstances. Where this is the case, a 

party should bring this to the CCB’s 

attention in a conference. 

The Authors Guild requested that the 

CCB notify parties that they have a duty 

to update information they provide in 

response to interrogatories and to 

disclose responsive documents no 

longer in their possession.152 As 

currently drafted, the regulation both 

imposes a duty to update and obligates 

parties ‘‘to preserve all material 

documents.’’ 153 These duties will be 

addressed in the CCB Handbook and in 

the parties’ pre- and post-discovery 

conferences. 

The Authors Guild also suggested that 

the CCB ‘‘should give reminders for 

deadlines.’’ 154 The Office considers the 

request impracticable for discoveryrelated deadlines that will be triggered 

by exchanges between the parties 

outside of eCCB, but is working to have 

eCCB send out email reminders related 

to certain deadlines that require a filing. 

AIPLA noted that it ‘‘supports the 

requirement that parties meet and 

confer regarding [discovery] disputes, 

before raising the issue with the CCB,’’ 

but warned that the requirement should 

not become a means for parties ‘‘to 

avoid disputes by failing to meet and 

confer.’’ 155 A party’s failure to confer 

will not prevent the CCB from 

addressing discovery disputes when 

needed. The final rule provides that 

parties whose reasonable efforts to 

confer are frustrated can explain the 

steps taken to resolve the dispute before 

seeking CCB assistance when requesting 

a conference. 

The proposed rule required parties to 

certify discovery responses, and the 

final rule clarifies the scope of 

certification. The producing party must 

certify that interrogatory responses are 

accurate and truthful, and that 

documents produced are genuine and 

unaltered, to the best of that party’s 

knowledge. The Authors Guild asked 

the Office to provide the specific 

wording of the required certification in 

the CCB Handbook and on CCB 

forms.156 The Office agrees, and plans 

on providing certification language in 

the CCB Handbook. The Office also 

intends to create forms for responding to 

standard interrogatories, and expects to 

include the certification. 

Amazon supported the certification 

requirement and suggested further 

requiring parties to certify that they 

have reviewed the CCB’s standard 

protective order, and that any materials 

they designate as confidential fit the 

protective order’s definition of 

‘‘confidential.’’ 157 To keep the required 

certification easy to use and understand 

by all parties, the Office is not inclined 

to make it more complicated or include 

a reference to protective orders that will 

only be present in certain cases.158

However, the Office notes that 

protective order violations may 

constitute bad-faith conduct. 

As noted above, in response to the 

comments received, the Office has 

conducted a complete review of all of 

the discovery regulations to ensure they 

are narrowly tailored and to make them 

more understandable to the general 

public. Specific changes that have been 

adopted are discussed below. Guidance 

will also be available to the parties 

through the Copyright Claims Attorneys, 

and the CCB Handbook will have 

detailed easy-to-understand instructions 

about the discovery process. 

1. Protective Orders 

The Office is incorporating 

commenters’ amendments to the 

proposed rule on protective orders. 

Amazon proposed that the categories of 

discovery material subject to 

designation as ‘‘confidential’’ should 

include advertising plans not previously 

disclosed to the public.159 Amazon also 

proposed a regulatory revision 

specifying that parties ‘‘must’’ (rather 

than ‘‘are expected to’’) attempt to 

resolve disputes over confidentiality 

designations before bringing such 

disputes to the CCB.160 The Office 

understands the benefits of having 

parties first discuss these issues directly 

before engaging with the CCB. At the 

same time, the Office is sensitive to the 

expertise imbalance that could occur 

when, for example, one party is 

represented and one party is pro se. The 

Copyright Alliance et al. urged that the 

proposed rule, which allowed the CCB 

to unilaterally de-designate materials 

labeled ‘‘confidential,’’ should provide 

the affected party a chance to object 

beforehand.161 The final rule makes 

each of these requested amendments, 

and the CCB will be tasked with 

ensuring that the protective order 

procedures are not misused when one 

party is pro se. 

2. Interrogatories 

As noted above, commenters 

generally favored the CCB’s use of 

standard form interrogatories.162 SFWA 

proposed that the interrogatories 

‘‘should be standardized for different 

media, formats, and kinds of 

publication.’’ 163 The Office does not 

believe that multiple versions of 

standardized interrogatory requests are 

required at this time, but will consider 

the adoption of different versions in the 

future. Under the final rule, parties that 

require media-specific discovery may 

request it under the process for 

additional discovery. 

Engine raised a concern that the 

language in the standard interrogatories, 

as summarized in the proposed 

regulation, might be ‘‘difficult enough to 

parse[ ] for attorneys’’ and ‘‘unclear for 

pro se parties who are encountering the 

discovery process for the first time.’’ 164

The Office has reviewed the proposed 

rule and made some simplifying 

revisions. Further, the Office notes that 

the rule describes the interrogatory 

categories, but does not include their 

final text. The actual interrogatory forms 

will adopt easy-to-understand language, 

and the Office intends to provide 

instructional materials, e.g., through the 

CCB Handbook, to guide the parties. 

Engine also commented that section 

512(f) misrepresentation claims are 

likely to require more and different 

interrogatories than a standard CCB 

misrepresentation discovery would 

provide, and, in particular, ‘‘[t]he CCBVerDate Sep<11>2014 17:25 May 16, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\17MYR3.SGM 17MYR3

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30070 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

165 Id. at 6–7. 

166 Id. at 7. 

167Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

168SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 6. 

169 17 U.S.C. 1506(n). 

170See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36. 

171 86 FR 69890, 69911 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.3(a)–(b)). 

172See Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 

4; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 15; MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 6– 

7. 

173MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 6. 

174 Id. at 6–7. 

175Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

176Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 15. 

177Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 1 

(citing 86 FR 69890, 69900). 

178AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

179Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

180 17 U.S.C. 1506(n)(1). 

181See MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 

7; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 15. 

182See Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4 

(supporting standardized interrogatories and 

document requests). 

183 86 FR 69890, 69911 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.4(c)(5)). 

184Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 5, add. at 

A–22. 

185Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 15 n.6; see also MPA & RIAA Initial 

NPRM Comments at 5 (stating that discovery 

‘‘should not extend to other transactions in which 

either party may have engaged, even if they are 

similar to the case at bar’’). 

issued interrogatories for [section] 512(f) 

cases, as they are currently phrased, are 

unlikely to capture the full range of 

evidence that a claimant would need to 

prove subjective bad faith.’’ 165 It 

proposed ‘‘eliminating the good cause 

requirement for an initial number of 

additional discovery requests in 

[section] 512(f) claims.’’ 166 The Office 

does not agree that this exception to the 

standard discovery rules is necessary. If 

a party asserting or responding to a 

section 512(f) claim believes that it 

needs additional information that is not 

captured by the standard 

misrepresentation interrogatories, it may 

make a request to propound further 

interrogatories under the provisions 

pertaining to additional discovery. 

Sergey Vernyuk requested a definition 

or further explanation of which 

documents count as ‘‘material.’’ 167 A 

‘‘material’’ document is one that could 

be used to prove or disprove a fact that 

is in dispute in a proceeding and may 

have influence on the outcome of the 

proceeding. As the universe of 

‘‘material’’ documents is unlimited, 

rather than put forward any sort of list 

in the regulations, the Office intends to 

provide guidance to pro se parties and 

provide examples in the CCB Handbook. 

Finally, SFWA also proposed that the 

Office make the interrogatories 

‘‘available for comment separately so 

that individual creator groups can fine 

tune them for maximum clarity.’’ 168

The Office appreciates the interest and 

will welcome feedback once the forms 

are final and publicly available, but 

finds that an additional round of public 

comment would be impractical as the 

CCB is due to commence operations 

shortly. 

3. Requests for Admission 

The CASE Act specifically refers to 

‘‘written requests for admission, as 

provided in regulations established by 

the Register of Copyrights.’’ 169 This is a 

standard form of discovery in Federal 

civil litigation.170 The NPRM proposed 

limiting parties to ten requests for 

admission, with compound requests 

barred.171 Some commenters, however, 

strongly advocated for eliminating them 

from CCB proceedings entirely.172

MPA and RIAA commented that 

requests for admission (‘‘RFAs’’) are 

‘‘prone to use of tendentious language 

by both the propounder of the RFA as 

well as the responding party, resulting 

in semantic battles between 

sophisticated attorneys that are unlikely 

to advance the adjudication of a 

copyright small-claims matter. . . . 

Drafting and responding to RFAs would 

consume significant time, and likely for 

little benefit.’’ 173 The MPA and RIAA 

also voiced ‘‘serious doubts that many 

pro se litigants, either claimants or 

respondents, would be able to engage in 

meaningful exchange of RFAs and 

responses—or engage in motion practice 

to resolve potential disputes about 

them.’’ 174 The Authors Guild opined 

that requests for admission ‘‘could 

prove to be a trap for pro se parties 

litigating against sophisticated 

parties.’’ 175 Likewise, Copyright 

Alliance et al. opposed the use of 

requests for admission on grounds of the 

complexity and burden.176

Some commenters did not object to 

the use of requests for admission in CCB 

discovery, and one strongly supported 

including them on a limited basis. 

Sergey Vernyuk agreed with the Office’s 

decision not to provide standard forms, 

leaving the content of the requests up to 

the parties.177 AIPLA considered the 

Office’s proposed ten-request limit 

‘‘reasonable,’’ 178 and Amazon ‘‘strongly 

support[ed] . . . limited requests for 

admission.’’ 179

The Office finds the comments 

requesting the elimination of requests 

for admission persuasive and believes 

that the elimination from the ordinary 

case would significantly streamline 

discovery without substantially 

affecting parties’ ability to develop the 

facts. The final rule classifies requests 

for admission as a form of additional 

discovery that the CCB may allow ‘‘on 

a limited basis’’ and ‘‘for good cause 

shown.’’ 180 They will not be available 

as ‘‘of right,’’ and requesting parties 

must provide the specific RFAs they 

seek to propound and show good cause 

for each. These restrictions are 

consistent with suggestions by the 

commenters who opposed the use of 

RFAs.181

4. Production of Documents 

Some commenters, including some 

who approved of the CCB-issued 

standardized discovery requests,182

contended that specific document 

requests described in the proposed rule 

are too broad. The NPRM proposed 

requiring parties responding to 

infringement claims or counterclaims to 

produce ‘‘documents related to’’ 

revenues, profits, and deductible 

expenses ‘‘directly related to the sale or 

use of the allegedly infringing 

material.’’ 183 To ‘‘safeguard against 

overbroad and potentially irrelevant 

discovery related to this type of 

financial information,’’ Amazon 

suggested that infringement respondents 

instead should be required to produce 

only ‘‘documents sufficient to show’’ 

those matters, arguing that the NPRM 

version of the request ‘‘may result in 

unintended and burdensome 

discovery.’’ 184 The Office agrees that 

this is a reasonable limitation and the 

final rule reflects the change. 

Some commenters proposed 

excluding certain categories of 

documents from the standardized 

requests. These proposals have not been 

adopted in the final rule. For example, 

Copyright Alliance et al. commented 

that ‘‘a party should not be entitled to 

discovery related to past licensing fees 

assessed by a copyright owner.’’ 185 The 

Office believes that a copyright owner’s 

licensing practices, and the licensing 

history of the infringed work and 

similar works, may be relevant to 

determining damages. Discovery of such 

relevant evidence should not be 

categorically excluded. 

For misrepresentation claims, 

Amazon recommended that respondents 

should be required to produce only 

‘‘documents sufficient to show’’ the 

truth or falsity of representations made 

in the notification or counternotification, rather than all 

‘‘[d]ocuments pertaining to’’ those 

matters, which could ‘‘result in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30071 

186Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 5, add. at 

A–23; 86 FR 69890, 69911 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.4(e)(2)). 

187Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 22 (discussing proposed 37 CFR 

225.4(a)). 

188MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 6; 86 

FR 69890, 69911 (proposed 37 CFR 225.4(a)(2)–(3)). 

189See 86 FR 69890, 69911 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.4(b)(7), (c)(5)). 

190Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4–5, add. 

at A–23 (discussing proposed 37 CFR 225.4(f)(1)– 

(2)), MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 6 

(discussing proposed 37 CFR 225.4(f)(2)); see 86 FR 

at 66911–12 (proposed 37 CFR 225.4(f)(1)–(2)). 

191Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 4–5, add. 

at A–23. 

192MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 6 

(discussing proposed 37 CFR 225.4(f)(2)); see also 

86 FR 69890, 66912 (proposed 37 CFR 225.4(f)(2)). 

193 86 FR at 66912 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.4(f)(2)(i)). 

194Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 21–22. 

195 86 FR 69890, 66912 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.4(f)(3)). 

196See id. at 66901. 

197Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 16. 

198 Id. 

199 17 U.S.C. 1506(o)(2), (p). 

200MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 7; 

Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 15; cf. Amazon Initial NPRM Comments at 5–6, 

add. at A–15 (noting that ‘‘depositions are generally 

not permitted in small claims courts around the 

country and are a costly discovery tool’’ and 

requesting that the Office clarify that they only are 

permitted ‘‘upon a showing of good cause’’). 

201 17 U.S.C. 1506(o)(2). 

202 86 FR 69890, 69909 (proposed 37 CFR 

225.1(e)). 

203MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 7– 

8; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 21. 

overbroad, irrelevant, and burdensome 

discovery.’’ 186 The Office believes the 

proposed change could be read to 

permit a respondent to produce only 

exculpatory documents ‘‘sufficient to 

show’’ that its statements were true, 

while withholding documents that 

support the misrepresentation claim. 

However, to limit the universe of 

potentially responsive documents, the 

Office revises the rule to ‘‘[d]ocuments 

directly pertaining to’’ truth or falsity. 

‘‘[T]o make clear that parties are 

permitted to withhold privileged 

documents,’’ Copyright Alliance et al. 

proposed that the Office should revise 

the proposed rule on the standard 

production of documents by excluding 

documents ‘‘privileged or protected 

from disclosure.’’ 187 The Office is 

concerned that introducing such legal 

terminology may prove counterproductive, especially when dealing 

with pro se parties, but the Office 

recognizes the importance of the 

attorney-client privilege. The final rule 

specifies that confidential 

communications between a party and its 

counsel reflecting or seeking legal 

advice related to the merits of the 

proceeding shall be considered 

privileged categorically and need not be 

produced. Parties seeking to withhold 

other types of documents must first seek 

and receive leave of the CCB. 

MPA and RIAA contended that two 

provisions in the proposed rule 

(requiring production of ‘‘[a]ll 

documents related to damages’’ and 

‘‘[a]ll other documents of which the 

party is reasonably aware that conflict 

with the party’s claims or defenses’’) 

‘‘seem to encompass large volumes of 

documents that are not directly related 

to the dispute itself.’’ 188 While the 

Office considers both categories of 

documents relevant, it also recognizes 

that other categories in the proposed 

rule cover the same subject matter.189

Thus, it is removing the broad category 

‘‘[a]ll documents related to damages’’ 

from the final rule and narrowing the 

other request by adding the phrase ‘‘in 

the proceeding’’ to the request for 

documents that conflict with the party’s 

claims or defenses. 

Commenters raised concerns about 

the scope of a party’s obligation to 

search for responsive documents and 

electronically stored information (e.g., 

email) to produce in discovery, with 

Amazon stating that such searches 

should not be of the documents of any 

of the party’s agents, employees, 

representatives, or others acting on the 

party’s behalf without limitation, but 

rather those whom the party reasonably 

believes would or should have 

responsive documents.190 In the final 

rule, the Office has limited the files that 

must be searched to files in the party’s 

possession or under their control, to the 

files of any of the party’s agents, 

employees, representatives, or others 

acting on the party’s behalf ‘‘who the 

party reasonably believes may have 

responsive documents.’’ 

The Office disagrees with Amazon’s 

suggestion that the rule should state that 

‘‘parties are not required to run 

custodial email searches to locate 

responsive documents.’’ 191 If a party 

reasonably believes that responsive 

documents are in its possession or 

under its control, including in emails 

and computer files, it must conduct a 

reasonable search. For that reason, the 

Office also disagrees with MPA and 

RIAA’s position that ‘‘[s]earches for 

responsive documents should be limited 

to the responding party itself,’’ and 

should not reach the files of its ‘‘agents, 

employees, representatives, or others 

acting on the party’s behalf.’’ 192 If a 

third party’s files are under the party’s 

control, they are not inaccessible, and 

the efficient resolution of CCB claims 

will require reasonable searches for the 

limited universe of documents subject 

to production. The final rule also 

establishes an explicit reasonable 

investigation standard for discovery 

responses. 

The Copyright Alliance et al. noted 

that the proposed rule, which set out a 

baseline expectation for manual 

searches of electronically stored 

information ‘‘that are easily 

accomplished by a layperson,’’ 193

appeared to prohibit parties from 

conducting more extensive searches.194

The Office never intended its rule to 

prohibit parties who want to conduct 

such searches from doing so. Adopting 

Copyright Alliance et al.’s suggestion, 

the Office revises the rule to provide 

that such searches ‘‘need not,’’ rather 

than ‘‘shall not,’’ exceed that baseline. 

The Copyright Alliance et al. further 

noted that the proposed rule treats 

document productions that ‘‘include 

large amounts of irrelevant or 

duplicative material,’’ 195 commonly 

referred to as ‘‘document dumps,’’ 196 as 

acts of ‘‘per se ‘bad faith.’ ’’ 197 Copyright 

Alliance et al. suggested that the CCB 

should retain the discretion to make 

determinations of bad faith ‘‘in light of 

all relevant context.’’ 198 The Office 

agrees, and the final rule modifies the 

proposed regulation by providing that 

such voluminous productions ‘‘may,’’ 

rather than ‘‘shall,’’ constitute bad-faith 

conduct. 

5. Depositions 

Depositions will not be permitted in 

CCB proceedings. Testimony is 

primarily submitted in written form and 

oral testimony is presented only at a 

hearing conducted before the CCB.199

Commenters asked the Office to make 

the prohibition of depositions 

explicit 200 and the final rule does so. 

6. Expert Disclosure 

The statute provides that ‘‘in 

exceptional cases,’’ the CCB may permit 

‘‘expert witness testimony . . . for good 

cause shown.’’ 201 The proposed rule 

adds that ‘‘[t]he use of expert witnesses 

in proceedings before the Board is 

highly disfavored and requests shall be 

rarely granted’’ and provides that the 

CCB will grant a request ‘‘only in 

exceptional circumstances and upon a 

showing that the case cannot fairly 

proceed without the use of the 

expert.’’ 202 Some commenters proposed 

requiring parties to disclose any intent 

to use an expert witness at an early stage 

in the proceeding, whether in the claim 

or before the response.203 If adopted, the 

proposal would let parties weigh the 

costs of retaining rebuttal experts at a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30072 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

204See generally Fharmacy Records v. Nassar, 

729 F. Supp. 2d 865, 874, 879 (E.D. Mich. 2010) 

(awarding defendant costs of $10,325 for expert 

musicologist and $18,142.57 for computer forensics 

expert in copyright case), aff’d, 465 F. App’x 448 

(6th Cir. 2012). 

205Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 22; see also Authors Guild Initial 

NPRM Comments at 3 (‘‘The proposed Handbook 

should explain exactly what should be provided in 

the written testimony, including documentary 

evidence and witness and party statements, in 

addition to providing lists of topics, sample 

documents, and forms.’’). 

206See 86 FR 69890, 69906 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.14(a)). 

207See id. (proposed 37 CFR 222.14(b)(1)(ii), 

(b)(2)(iv)). 

208See id. at 69909 (proposed 37 CFR 225.1(a)(1)). 

209 17 U.S.C. 1506(c)(2). 210 86 FR 69890, 69902–03. 211Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 22; SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 

6. 212AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 213 86 FR 69890, 69905 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.10(b)(2), (b)(8), (c)). 214 Id. at 69896. 215AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 216Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 18. 217 17 U.S.C. 1503(a)(1), (a)(2). 218 Id. at 1503(a)(1)(A), (C), (E), (G)(i). 

219 Id. at 1503(a)(2)(A)–(B). 

220 86 FR 69890, 69907 (proposed 37 CFR 

222.15(f)). 

221Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 23. 

222Authors Guild Initial NPRM Comments at 3. 

stage when opting out or voluntarily 

dismissing would still be viable 

alternatives. However, the Office 

considers the proposed requirement 

impractical. The CCB will rarely, if ever, 

allow expert testimony. In all 

likelihood, parties will rarely request it, 

considering the typical costs of experts 

compared to the maximum damages 

recoverable.204 Moreover, a party often 

will not know if it needs an expert until 

it sees the other side’s evidence. 

Accordingly, although expert testimony 

will rarely be allowed, the intention to 

request it need not be disclosed at the 

beginning of CCB proceedings. 

7. Written Testimony 

Commenters requested that the CCB 

provide parties with ‘‘instructions about 

how to draft written testimony and what 

should be included.’’ 205 The Office 

intends to provide such guidance in the 

CCB Handbook, and takes note of the 

specific topics that commenters 

suggested for inclusion. 

The Office is making two changes to 

the proposed regulations on written 

testimony to make the process more 

accessible to pro se parties. First, parties 

are provided 15 additional days (45 

total) to file response testimony and 7 

additional days (21 total) to file reply 

testimony.206 Second, the Office is 

streamlining the proposed regulations 

by omitting certain provisions regarding 

witness sponsorship of documentary 

evidence,207 as these are overly 

burdensome and other regulatory 

provisions suffice to ensure 

authentication.208 The Office will also 

be creating forms that will make the 

submission of materials with party 

statements easier. 

E. Hearings 

Noting that the statute appears to 

require virtual hearings, although 

permitting ‘‘alternative arrangements’’ 

for submission of physical or other 

nontestimonial evidence that cannot be 

presented virtually,209 the Office 

solicited comments on whether the 

statute can be read to allow an in-person 

hearing when all parties request it and 

can attend.210 Two commenters opined 

that the statute does not appear to 

permit such hearings, beyond the 

limited situations it specifically 

describes.211 Another commenter 

‘‘agree[d] with the Office’s proposal that 

in-person hearings be permitted if 

requested by all parties,’’ but did not 

cite any statutory authority for this 

position.212 The final rule provides for 

virtual proceedings, except as expressly 

described in the statute. Recognizing 

that the CCB is a new tribunal which 

has not yet held a hearing, the Office 

does not take a position at this time 

regarding whether, in exceptional 

circumstances, additional in-person 

proceedings may be permissible. 

The proposed rule stated that 

‘‘[c]onferences may be held by one or 

more Officers.’’ 213 At the same time, the 

Office solicited comments in the NPRM 

on whether it is authorized to have 

Copyright Claims Attorneys conduct 

non-substantive hearings to streamline 

the proceedings.214 Two comments 

addressed the point. AIPLA commented 

that it believes such a procedure is 

permissible, and added, ‘‘[a]ll parties 

should retain the right to have any given 

conference held by an Officer.’’ 215 The 

Copyright Alliance et al. commented 

‘‘that there should be a presumption 

that those conferences will be held by 

Officers, however Copyright Claims 

Attorneys should be permitted to hold 

those conferences if deemed necessary 

to ensure that proceedings are 

‘streamlined.’ ’’ 216

The Office makes no changes to the 

final rule with respect to this subject. It 

concludes that the statute clearly 

describes the duties of the Copyright 

Claims Officers and those of the 

Copyright Claims Attorneys.217 Among 

other duties, Officers shall: (1) 

Determine the claims and defenses 

asserted by the parties; (2) rule on 

‘‘scheduling, discovery, evidentiary, and 

other matters’’; (3) conduct hearings and 

conferences; and (4) make damage 

awards.218 At the same time, the CASE 

Act authorizes the Attorneys ‘‘[t]o 

provide assistance to the Copyright 

Claims Officers in the administration of 

the duties of those Officers under’’ the 

statute and ‘‘[t]o provide assistance to 

members of the public with respect to 

the procedures and requirements of the 

[CCB].’’ 219 The Office is of the view that 

17 U.S.C. 1503(a)(2)(A) and (B) provide 

flexibility as to how the Attorneys may 

assist the Officers and communicate 

with the public, including parties, 

regarding the ‘‘procedures and 

requirements’’ of the CCB. For example, 

the Attorneys may communicate with 

the parties regarding administrative, 

scheduling, or logistical matters, 

allowing such nonsubstantive matters to 

be resolved more quickly. If the 

Attorney’s communication with the 

parties reveals an unresolved 

substantive issue or dispute, the issue 

will be referred to an Officer and a 

conference may be scheduled. 

The proposed regulation would have 

barred post-hearing submissions of 

additional testimony or evidence 

‘‘unless at the Board’s specific 

request.’’ 220 The Copyright Alliance et 

al. proposed allowing such submissions 

with leave of the CCB.221 The Office 

agrees and adopts the proposed 

amendment. 

The Authors Guild argued against 

requiring pro se parties to conduct 

direct or cross examinations of testifying 

witnesses and suggested that the CCB 

conduct the questioning of witnesses 

instead.222 The Office notes that no 

parties are required to ask questions of 

witnesses, but it does not think parties 

should be denied this option just 

because they appear pro se. As 

described earlier, the Office envisions 

that any questioning of witnesses during 

hearings will be significantly less formal 

than in Federal court proceedings. Pro 

se parties will not be expected to 

master, or indeed have any familiarity 

with, evidentiary rules concerning the 

questioning of witnesses. Officers also 

will take an active role in managing 

hearings and will have the ability to ask 

their own questions of witnesses to 

ensure that testimony is fully 

developed. 

The Copyright Alliance et al. 

criticized the proposed rule’s references 

to direct examination, crossexamination, redirect examination, and 

witness impeachment as 

inappropriately reliant on Federal 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30073 

223Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 8. 

224AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

225See 86 FR 69890, 69909 (proposed rule 37 CFR 

222.19(e)) (‘‘Exhibits not submitted as part of 

written testimony may be shown to a witness on 

cross-examination or redirect examination only for 

the purposes of impeachment or rehabilitation. 

Copies of such exhibits must be distributed to the 

Board and other parties before being shown, unless 

the Board directs otherwise.’’). 

226 Id. at 69915 (proposed 37 CFR pts. 230, 231); 

see 17 U.S.C. 1506(w)–(x). 

227 17 U.S.C. 1506(x). 

228 Id.; see also 86 FR 69890, 69903. 

229 86 FR 69890, 69903. 

230Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 2; 

AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 5. 

231AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 5. 

232Sergey Vernyuk Initial NPRM Comments at 2. 

233 Id. 

234 17 U.S.C. 1506(w). 

235Cf. id. at 1506(x) (providing that when the 

Register reviews a final determination and remands 

it to the CCB for reconsideration ‘‘and for issuance 

of an amended final determination. Such amended 

final determination shall not be subject to further 

consideration or review’’ by the CCB or the 

Register). 

236AIPLA Initial NPRM Comments at 5. 

237Engine Initial NPRM Comments at 8. 

238 Id. at 5. 

239U.S. Copyright Office, Strategic Plan 2022– 

2026, 9 (Jan. 2022), https://www.copyright.gov/ 

reports/strategic-plan/USCO-strategic2022- 

2026.pdf. 

240Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 18. Under the CASE Act, ‘‘party’’ is 

defined to mean both a party and a party’s attorney, 

as applicable. .’’ 17 U.S.C. 1501(3). 

procedures and too procedurally 

complex for pro se parties.223 The Office 

is modifying the final rule to clarify that 

CCB hearings will not mirror Federal 

courtroom practices and procedures. For 

example, questioning during hearings 

will be significantly less formal and 

regimented than Federal hearings and 

trials. The CCB Handbook will also 

greatly help CCB participants through 

the process. In addition, unlike in 

Federal court, Copyright Claims Officers 

will guide participants through the 

process of a hearing, including how to 

submit witness testimony. The final rule 

therefore provides, using less legal 

jargon, that parties may ask questions of 

witnesses, and eliminates the provision 

on formal objections to evidence during 

a hearing. Due to the CCB proceeding’s 

nature and the likelihood that there may 

be pro se participants on one or both 

sides, the Office does not believe that 

such a process is necessary and might 

be disruptive to proceedings or allow 

represented participants to take 

advantage of pro se participants. 

AIPLA commented, ‘‘[a]bsent 

justification, parties should not be 

permitted in CCB proceedings to rely on 

documents in their case-in-chief that 

they failed to produce during discovery. 

Even if not produced in discovery, such 

documents should be permitted in 

rebuttal, consistent with federal district 

court practice.’’ 224 The comment is 

generally consistent with the proposed 

rule.225 However, to streamline the 

procedures, minimize legalese, and 

accommodate parties who may not be 

familiar with formal rules of evidence, 

the Office is modifying the final rule to 

provide in more direct terms that 

exhibits not submitted in written 

testimony may not be used at a hearing 

without leave of the CCB. 

F. Post-Determination Review 

The proposed rule included 

procedures related to the two levels of 

review of final CCB determinations 

described in the statute: 

Reconsideration by the CCB and review 

by the Register of Copyrights.226 The 

Office received no comments related to 

requests for reconsideration, and 

implements those regulations in the 

form proposed in the NPRM. 

The statute provides that a party may 

request review by the Register of 

Copyrights if the CCB denies that party’s 

request for reconsideration.227 It does 

not expressly state whether the nonrequesting party, if it loses the 

reconsideration request, may request the 

Register’s review.228 The NPRM did not 

provide a process for the non-requesting 

party to seek the Register’s review after 

reconsideration. The Office invited 

comment on this issue.229

Two commenters responded.230

AIPLA approved of not allowing such 

review, stating, ‘‘[o]ne purpose of the 

Act is to provide a simple and speedy 

process. . . . [P]ost-determination 

proceedings should be kept to a 

minimum. The best way to give effect to 

the statute as written, while keeping 

post-determination proceedings to a 

minimum, is to restrict the Register’s 

review to a party losing a request for 

reconsideration.’’ 231 On the other hand, 

Sergey Vernyuk questioned the fairness 

in denying the ability to seek the 

Register’s review to a party who initially 

received a favorable determination only 

to have it reversed on 

reconsideration.232 He proposed that a 

non-requesting party that loses on 

reconsideration could seek 

reconsideration itself, ‘‘and if that 

second reconsideration request is 

denied . . . then at that point both 

parties had sought reconsideration and 

can thus seek the Register’s review.’’ 233

The Office agrees that it would be 

unfair if a party who had initially 

prevailed, but subsequently finds itself 

on the losing side after a request for 

reconsideration, had no recourse. Under 

the statute, the CCB’s determination 

after granting reconsideration 

constitutes an ‘‘amended final 

determination.’’ 234 The Office 

concludes that the party that opposed 

the initial request for reconsideration 

may request reconsideration or 

amendment by the CCB of the amended 

final determination.235 If that party is 

unsuccessful before the CCB, it may 

then request review by the Register. 

AIPLA further commented that ‘‘the 

proposed filing fee of $300 is 

appropriate for Register review. The 

amount is both affordable and high 

enough to discourage prolonging 

proceedings.’’ 236 There were no 

contrary comments. The Office is 

maintaining the proposed fee. 

G. Additional Considerations 

1. Data Collection 

Engine recommended that the Office 

collect and make available data sets, in 

a transparent and anonymized fashion, 

including statistics on the number of 

cases filed, defaulting respondents, optouts, waivers of service of process, 

‘‘how often defaulting respondents later 

try to correct their default and either 

opt-out or participate,’’ and ‘‘the type 

and amount of damages awards 

made.’’ 237 Engine asserted that 

collecting data could assist the Office in 

developing procedures that are fair to all 

parties and that prevent abuse, 

including enabling the Office to identify 

which, if any, categories of respondents 

may be misusing the default process.238

As one of the four overarching goals in 

Copyright Office’s recently released 

Strategic Plan 2022–2026, the Office 

intends to ‘‘enhance the development 

and use of data as an evidentiary 

foundation for policymaking and to 

improve measurements of 

organizational performance, and will 

make more data easily accessible to both 

internal and external audiences.’’ 239

Consistent with this goal, the CCB will 

be tracking data relevant to its 

operations internally and, while the 

scope of that data collection is still 

undetermined, the Office will ultimately 

issue a public report on the CCB that 

will likely include data related to its 

operations. 

2. Other Issues 

The Copyright Alliance et al. pointed 

out that the proposed regulation 

inconsistently referred to ‘‘attorneys’’ as 

either included in, or distinct from, 

‘‘parties.’’ 240 The Office has clarified 

references in the final rule, made other 

modest revisions for the purpose of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30074 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

241 17 U.S.C. 1506(z). 

242 Id. 

243 86 FR 69890, 69898–99, 69912–13 (Dec. 8, 

2021). 

244 Id. at 69898–99. 

245SFWA Reply NPRM Comments at 5. 

246MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 3– 

5; Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM Comments 

at 12–13. 

247MPA & RIAA Initial NPRM Comments at 4. 

248Copyright Alliance et al. Initial NPRM 

Comments at 12. 

249 Id. at 12. 

250See id. (stating that discovery, when 

permitted, ‘‘should be limited to only a few specific 

items that are relevant, probative, and likely to 

impact the outcome of the case’’). 

251 Id. at 20. 

252The Copyright Alliance et al. stated that 

‘‘section 1506(q) of the Copyright Act gives the 

claimant the ability to change its mind, dismiss the 

claim without prejudice, and refile the claim under 

the procedures for standard small claims if it 

decides that discovery is necessary.’’ Id. at 12. The 

Office disagrees with any suggestion that 17 U.S.C. 

1506(q) provides an independent basis for a 

claimant to voluntarily dismiss a claim after a 

respondent files a response. Section 1506(q) only 

allows a claimant to voluntarily dismiss a claim 

before a respondent files a response. See 17 U.S.C. 

1506(q). Section 222.17(c) of the regulations 

governs voluntary dismissal of claims after a 

response is filed and only allows for voluntary 

dismissal without prejudice when either the CCB 

determines that such dismissal would be in the 

interests of justice or if the parties agree in writing. 

clarity, and corrected typographical 

errors. 

H. Smaller Claims 

The CASE Act provides that the 

Register shall establish regulations to 

provide for the determination of 

‘‘smaller claims,’’ i.e., claims in which 

total damages sought do not exceed 

$5,000.241 Such smaller claims must be 

determined by not fewer than one 

Copyright Claims Officer.242 The Office 

issued proposed rules governing smaller 

claims in its NPRM, including 

provisions limiting discovery to 

‘‘standard interrogatories, requests for 

admission, and the standard production 

of document requests provided by the 

CCB,’’ prohibiting expert testimony, and 

prohibiting hearings.243 The Office also 

asked for comments addressing whether 

the proposed rule struck ‘‘a proper 

balance between streamlining the 

[CCB’s] process while providing the 

procedural protections available to other 

claims before the CCB.’’ 244

SFWA supported the proposed 

rule.245 MPA and RIAA and the 

Copyright Alliance et al. advocated for 

further streamlined procedures, 

especially for eliminating standard 

discovery in smaller claims 

proceedings.246 MPA and RIAA stated 

that ‘‘permitting even the standard types 

of discovery in these ‘smaller’ cases is 

too much; the costs involved with 

propounding, responding to, and 

potentially disputing discovery matters 

through motion practice, would quickly 

exceed the maximum $5,000 in 

dispute.’’ 247 The Copyright Alliance et 

al. suggested that ‘‘[e]liminating 

discovery would make the [smaller] 

claims process much more attractive to 

claimants seeking damages awards of 

less than $5,000 and to respondents 

who would be much more amenable to 

participating in the small claims process 

(and not opting out) if there was no 

discovery.’’ 248 The Copyright Alliance 

et al., however, would allow for 

discovery in smaller claims proceedings 

‘‘upon a showing of good cause or 

where the CCB [O]fficers need to ask 

questions to complete the record and 

make a determination,’’ though it would 

limit this discovery to ‘‘only a few 

specific items that are relevant, 

probative, and likely to impact the 

outcome of the case.’’ 249

On review, the Office agrees that a 

more expedited and less formal process 

is appropriate for smaller claims. The 

final rule streamlines the smaller claims 

process by using written submissions 

and informal conferences to minimize 

party burdens and by allowing the 

presiding Officer to take a more active 

role in case management. Discovery will 

be significantly limited, if allowed at all. 

The extent of any discovery will 

typically be addressed at an initial 

conference, which will take the place of 

the pre-discovery conference held in 

non-smaller claims proceedings. The 

smaller claims proceeding will also 

allow for a party position statement, a 

merits conference to discuss the 

evidence and the issues presented, a 

tentative finding of facts by the 

presiding Officer, the opportunity for 

parties to respond to those findings, and 

a final determination. Additional details 

about these steps are provided below. 

The initial conference will allow a 

presiding Officer to discuss the claims 

and defenses with the parties and to 

determine whether any discovery 

beyond the evidence appended to the 

claim and response should be required. 

Consistent with the Copyright Alliance 

et al.’s suggestion,250 any request for the 

production of information or documents 

that the presiding Officer may approve 

will be narrowly tailored to the issues 

raised in the proceeding and highly 

likely to lead to production of relevant 

evidence. In addition, the presiding 

Officer will ensure that such request 

will not result in an undue burden on 

any party. Parties will provide the 

requested evidence to each other, along 

with any additional evidence they 

intend to use to support their claims 

and defenses. 

After the exchange of evidence 

between the parties, each party shall file 

the evidence it wishes the presiding 

Officer to consider and may submit a 

written statement outlining its position, 

as well as statements from witnesses. 

These written statements are the only 

submissions allowed—no responsive 

statements will be permitted. Further, 

parties may not submit expert testimony 

for consideration. The presiding Officer 

will then hold a merits conference, at 

which the parties and the Officer will 

fully discuss the claims, counterclaims, 

defenses, and evidence. Each party will 

have an opportunity to respond to the 

evidence and any other submissions 

provided by the other party. The Officer 

may also hear from and question any 

witnesses present at the conference. 

After this, the Officer will issue 

preliminary findings of fact to which 

each party will have an opportunity to 

respond. The Officer will have the 

discretion to hold another conference, if 

necessary. After considering any 

responses to the preliminary findings of 

fact, the Officer will issue a final 

determination. 

In addition to these important 

changes, the final rule clarifies 

procedures related to the timing of the 

smaller claims election, requesting a 

smaller claims proceeding, and the 

content of the initial and second notice 

in a smaller claims proceeding. The 

Copyright Alliance et al. sought 

clarification about the consequences of 

a smaller claims respondent filing a 

counterclaim for damages above the 

smaller claims limit.251 Under the final 

rule, a counterclaim for damages above 

the smaller claims limit is not 

permitted. A respondent who is not 

content with a counterclaim limited to 

$5,000 may decline to use the smaller 

claims track and either use the standard 

proceeding by bringing a separate claim 

against the original claimant or bring the 

claim to Federal court. 

Further, the rule makes clear that a 

claimant may change its election from 

proceeding as a smaller claim 

proceeding to a standard proceeding (or 

from a standard proceeding to a smaller 

claim proceeding) before service of the 

initial notice. If the claimant makes 

such an election, it must request an 

updated initial notice before serving the 

notice on a respondent.252

Finally, the final rule clarifies that 

when a claimant elects a smaller claims 

proceeding, the initial notice and 

second notice to the respondent will 

differ in some respects from the notices 

issued with standard claims. Smaller 

claims notices will indicate that the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30075 

253 37 CFR 222.3(a)(16), 222.4(a)(16). 

claim is a smaller claim and provide a 

brief explanation of the procedural 

differences between smaller claims and 

standard claims. While the Office 

intended to provide such information 

under its authority to ‘‘[i]nclude any 

additional information’’ in the initial or 

second notices,253 it makes sense to 

make this requirement explicit in its 

regulations. 

The Office believes that its updated, 

streamlined procedure for smaller 

claims substantially addresses 

commenters’ concerns, will provide a 

clear alternative to both the CCB’s 

standard proceeding and to Federal 

litigation, and will ultimately 

incentivize claimants to use the CCB’s 

smaller claims procedures where 

appropriate. While this updated rule is 

a logical outgrowth of the NOI, NPRM, 

and public comments, the Office is 

offering the public the opportunity to 

submit additional comments on the 

smaller claims final regulations so it can 

determine whether they strike the 

proper balance between streamlining 

the smaller claims process and 

providing sufficient procedural 

protections to all parties. 

List of Subjects 

37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 

37 CFR Part 220 

Claims, Copyright, General. 

37 CFR Parts 222, 224, and 225 Through 

233 

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, 

to read as follows: 

Subchapter A—Copyright Office and 

Procedures 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

■ 1. The general authority citation for 

part 201 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

* * * * * 

■ 2. In § 201.3, in table 4 to paragraph 

(g), add paragraph (g)(3) to read as 

follows: 

§ 201.3 Fees for registration, recordation, 

and related services, special services, and 

services performed by the Licensing 

Section and the Copyright Claims Board. 

* * * * * 

(g) * * * 

TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (g) 

Copyright claims board fees Fees 

($) 

* * * * * 

(3) Filing fee for review of a final 

CCB determination by the Register ........................................... 300 

Subchapter B—Copyright Claims 

Board and Procedures 

■ 3. Revise part 220 to read as follows: 

PART 220— 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

Sec. 

220.1 Definitions. 

220.2 Authority and functions. 

220.3 Copyright Claims Board Handbook. 

220.4 Timing. 

220.5 Requests, responses, and written 

submissions. 

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

§ 220.1 Definitions. 

For purposes of this subchapter: 

(a) Active proceeding denotes a claim 

in which the claimant has filed proof of 

service and the respondent has not, 

within the sixty day opt-out period, 

submitted an opt-out notice to the 

Copyright Claims Board (Board). 

(b) Authorized representative means a 

person, other than legal counsel, who is 

authorized under this subchapter to 

represent a party before the Board. 

(c) Bad-faith conduct occurs when a 

party pursues a claim, counterclaim, or 

defense for a harassing or other 

improper purpose, or without a 

reasonable basis in law or fact. Such 

conduct includes any actions taken in 

support of a claim, counterclaim, or 

defense and may occur at any point 

during a proceeding before the Board, 

including before a proceeding becomes 

an active proceeding. 

(d) Default determination is a final 

determination issued as part of the 

default procedures set forth in 17 U.S.C. 

1506(u) when the respondent does not 

participate in those procedures. 

(e) Final determination is a decision 

that concludes an active proceeding 

before the Board and is binding only on 

the participating parties. A final 

determination generally assesses the 

merits of the claims in the proceeding, 

except when issued to dismiss a 

claimant’s claims for failure to 

prosecute. 

(f) 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. 

(g) Second notice means the notice of 

a proceeding sent by the Board as 

described in 17 U.S.C. 1506(h). 

(h) Standard interrogatories are 

written questions provided by the Board 

that a party in an active proceeding 

must answer as part of discovery. 

(i) Standard requests for the 

production of documents are written 

requests provided by the Board 

requiring a party to provide documents, 

other information, or tangible evidence 

as part of discovery in an active 

proceeding. 

§ 220.2 Authority and functions. 

The Copyright Claims Board (Board) 

is an alternative forum to Federal court 

in which parties may voluntarily seek to 

resolve certain copyright-related claims 

regarding any category of copyrighted 

work, as provided in chapter 15 of title 

17 of the United States Code. The 

Board’s proceedings are governed by 

title 17 of the United States Code and 

the regulations in this subchapter. 

§ 220.3 Copyright Claims Board 

Handbook. 

The Copyright Claims Board may 

issue a handbook explaining the Board’s 

practices and procedures. The handbook 

may be viewed on, downloaded from, or 

printed from the Board’s website. The 

handbook will not override any existing 

statute or regulation. 

§ 220.4 Timing. 

When the start or end date for 

calculating any deadline set forth in this 

subchapter falls on a weekend or a 

Federal holiday, the start or end date 

shall be extended to the next Federal 

workday. Any document subject to a 

deadline must be either submitted to the 

Board’s electronic filing system (eCCB) 

by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the date 

of the deadline or dispatched by the 

date of the deadline. 

§ 220.5 Requests, responses, and written 

submissions. 

(a) Requests and responses submitted 

through fillable form. Unless this 

subchapter provides otherwise or the 

Board orders otherwise, documents 

listed under this subsection shall be 

submitted through a fillable form on 

eCCB and shall comply with the 

following requirements: 

(1) Tier one requests and responses. 

Requests and responses to requests 

which are identified under this 

subsection shall be filed through the 

fillable form on eCCB and be limited to 

4,000 characters. Any party may submit 

a response to a request identified in this 

subsection within seven days of the 

filing of the request. The Board may 

deny such a request before the time to 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30076 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

submit a response expires, but the Board 

will not grant a request before the time 

to submit a response expires, unless the 

request is consented to by all parties. 

There shall be no replies from a party 

that submits a request, absent leave of 

the Board. Tier one requests and 

responses shall include: 

(i) Requests to amend a scheduling 

order and responses to such requests 

under § 222.11(d)(2) of this subchapter; 

(ii) Requests for a general conference 

or discovery conference (those not 

involving a dispute) and responses to 

such requests under § 222.11(c), 

§ 225.1(c), or § 226.4(g) of this 

subchapter; 

(iii) Statements as to damages under 

§ 222.15(b)(3) of this subchapter; 

(iv) Requests for a hearing under 

§ 222.16(c) of this subchapter; 

(v) Requests to withdraw claims or 

counterclaims under § 222.17 of this 

subchapter; 

(vi) Requests for a settlement 

conference and responses to such 

requests under § 222.18(b)(2) of this 

subchapter; 

(vii) Requests to stay proceedings for 

settlement discussions or requests to 

extend the stay of proceedings for 

settlement discussions, and responses to 

such requests, under § 222.18(f) of this 

subchapter; 

(viii) Joint requests for a dismissal 

under § 222.18(g) of this subchapter; 

(ix) Requests for the standard 

protective order under § 222.19(a) of 

this subchapter; 

(x) Requests to remove a 

confidentiality designation and 

responses to such requests under 

§ 222.19(a)(5) of this subchapter; 

(xi) Requests for a custom protective 

order under § 222.19(b) of this 

subchapter; 

(xii) Requests to use not previously 

submitted evidence at a hearing and 

responses to such requests under 

§ 222.20(d) of this subchapter; 

(xiii) Requests to modify the 

discovery schedule and responses to 

such requests under § 225.1(b) of this 

subchapter; 

(xiv) Requests to withhold additional 

documents as privileged and responses 

to such requests under § 225.3(g) of this 

subchapter; 

(xv) Requests to issue a notice 

regarding a missed deadline or 

requirement and responses to such 

requests under § 227.1(a) or § 228.2(a) of 

this subchapter; 

(xvi) Responses to a Board-issued 

notice regarding a missed deadline in 

the default context under § 227.1(c) of 

this subchapter; 

(xvii) Responses to a Board-issued 

notice regarding a missed deadline in 

the failure to prosecute context under 

§ 228.2(c)(2) of this subchapter; 

(xviii) Requests to designate an 

official reporter for a hearing and 

responses to such requests under 

§ 229.1(d) of this subchapter; 

(xix) Requests to withdraw 

representation under § 232.5 of this 

subchapter; and 

(xx) Requests not otherwise covered 

under § 220.5(d). 

(2) Tier two requests and responses. 

Requests and responses to requests 

which are identified under this 

subsection shall be filed through the 

fillable form on eCCB and be limited to 

10,000 characters, not including any 

permitted attachments. Any party may 

file a response within 14 days of the 

filing of the request or the order to show 

cause. The Board may deny a request 

before the time to submit a response 

expires, but the Board will not grant a 

request before the time to submit a 

response expires, unless the request is 

consented to by all parties. There shall 

be no replies from a party that submits 

a request, absent leave of the Board. Tier 

two requests and responses shall 

include: 

(i) Requests to amend pleadings and 

responses to such requests under 

§ 222.12(d)(2) of this subchapter; 

(ii) Requests to consolidate and 

responses to such requests under 

§ 222.13(c) of this subchapter; 

(iii) Requests to intervene by a third 

party and responses to such requests 

under § 222.14(c) of this subchapter; 

(iv) Requests to dismiss for 

unsuitability and responses to such 

requests under § 224.2(c) of this 

subchapter; 

(v) Requests for additional discovery 

under § 225.4(a)(4) of this subchapter. 

Such requests must enter each specific 

additional discovery request (e.g., the 

specific interrogatories, document 

requests or requests for admission 

sought) within the fillable form; 

(vi) Responses to requests for 

additional discovery under § 225.4(a)(4) 

of this subchapter; 

(vii) Requests to serve requests for 

admission and responses to requests to 

serve requests for admission under 

§ 225.4(c) of this subchapter; 

(viii) Requests to be able to present an 

expert witness and responses to such 

requests under § 225.4(b)(2) of this 

subchapter; 

(ix) Requests for a conference to 

resolve a discovery dispute under 

§ 225.5(b) of this subchapter. Such 

requests must attach any inadequate 

interrogatory responses or inadequate 

request for admission responses and 

may attach communications related to 

the discovery dispute or documents 

specifically discussed in the request 

related to the inadequacy of the 

document production; 

(x) Responses to requests for a 

conference to resolve a discovery 

dispute under § 225.5(b) of this 

subchapter. Such responses may attach 

communications related to the 

discovery dispute or produced 

documents specifically pertinent to the 

dispute; 

(xi) Requests for sanctions and 

responses to such requests under 

§ 225.5(e)(1) of this subchapter; 

(xii) Requests for a third-party to 

attend a hearing and responses to such 

requests under § 229.1(c) of this 

subchapter; 

(xiii) Responses to an order to show 

cause regarding bad-faith conduct under 

§ 232.3(b)(1) of this subchapter; 

(xiv) Requests for a conference related 

to alleged bad-faith conduct and 

responses to such requests under 

§ 232.3(b)(2) of this subchapter; 

(xv) Responses to an order to show 

cause regarding a pattern of bad-faith 

conduct under § 232.4(b)(1) of this 

subchapter; and 

(xvi) Requests for a conference related 

to a pattern of alleged bad-faith conduct 

and responses to such requests under 

§ 232.4(b)(2) of this subchapter. 

(b) Tier three: Uploaded written 

submissions. (1) Unless the Board orders 

otherwise, written submissions not 

identified as tier one or tier two requests 

and responses under this section shall 

be uploaded to eCCB (with the 

exception of settlement statements 

under § 222.18(d) of this subchapter), 

shall comply with the applicable page 

limitations and response times set forth 

in this subchapter for such documents, 

and shall— 

(i) Include a title; 

(ii) Include a caption; 

(iii) Be typewritten; 

(iv) Be double-spaced, except for 

headings, footnotes, or block quotations, 

which may be single-spaced; 

(v) Be in 12-point type or larger; and 

(vi) Include the typed or handwritten 

signature of the party submitting the 

document. 

(2) Documents considered tier three 

submissions shall include: 

(i) Direct party statements and 

response party statements under 

§ 222.15(b)(3) of this subchapter; 

(ii) Reply party statements under 

§ 222.15(c)(3) of this subchapter; 

(iii) Settlement position statements 

under § 222.18(d) of this subchapter; 

(iv) Requests to reconsider 

determinations to dismiss for 

unsuitability and responses to such 

requests under § 224.2(b)(2) of this 

subchapter; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30077 

(v) Smaller claims position statements 

under § 226.4(d)(2)(ii) of this 

subchapter; 

(vi) Responses to smaller claims 

Board-proposed findings of fact under 

§ 226.4(e)(1); 

(vii) Claimant written direct party 

statement in support of default under 

§ 227.2(a) of this subchapter; 

(viii) Claimant response to Board 

determination after default that 

evidence is insufficient to find for 

claimant under § 227.3(a)(2) of this 

subchapter; 

(ix) Response to notice of proposed 

default determination under § 227.4(a) 

of this subchapter; 

(x) Requests to vacate a default 

determination and responses to such 

requests under § 227.5(c) of this 

subchapter; 

(xi) Request to vacate a dismissal for 

failure to prosecute and responses to 

such requests under § 228.2(e) of this 

subchapter; 

(xii) Requests for reconsideration 

under § 230.2 of this subchapter; 

(xiii) Responses to requests for 

reconsideration under § 230.3 of this 

subchapter; 

(xiv) Requests for review by the 

Register of Copyrights under § 231.2 of 

this subchapter; and 

(xv) Responses to requests for review 

by the Register of Copyrights under 

§ 231.3 of this subchapter. 

(c) Replies. Other than written 

testimony submitted pursuant to 

§ 222.15 of this subchapter, replies to 

any responses to requests or written 

submissions shall not be permitted, 

unless otherwise provided for in this 

subchapter or permitted by the Board. 

(d) Other requests and responses. Any 

requests to the Board not specified in 

this part can be submitted by filing a 

request not otherwise covered under 

paragraph (a)(1) of this section. 

Depending on the nature of the request, 

the Board shall advise the parties 

whether the request is permitted and, if 

so, if and by when the response must be 

filed. 

PART 222—PROCEEDINGS 

■ 4. The authority citation for part 222 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 5. Add § 222.1 to read as follows: 

§ 222.1 Applicability of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of 

Evidence. 

The rules of procedure and evidence 

governing proceedings before the 

Copyright Claims Board (Board) are set 

forth in this subchapter. The Board is 

not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure or the Federal Rules of 

Evidence. 

■ 6. In § 222.3: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(15), remove ‘‘and’’; 

■ b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(16) as 

paragraph (a)(17); and 

■ c. Add a new paragraph (a)(16). 

The adition reads as follows: 

§ 222.3 Initial notice. 

(a) * * * 

(16) In the case of a proceeding in 

which the claimant has requested under 

§ 222.2(c)(1) that the proceeding be 

conducted as a smaller claim under 37 

CFR part 226, include a statement that 

the proceeding shall be conducted as a 

smaller claim and a brief explanation of 

the differences between smaller claims 

proceedings and other proceedings 

before the Board; and 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 222.4 as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(15), remove ‘‘and’’; 

■ b. Redesignate paragraph (a)(16) as 

paragraph (a)(17); and 

■ c. Add a new paragraph (a)(16). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 222.4 Second notice. 

(a) * * * 

(16) In the case of a proceeding in 

which the claimant has requested under 

§ 222.2(c)(1) that the proceeding be 

conducted as a smaller claim under 37 

CFR part 226, include a statement that 

the proceeding shall be conducted as a 

smaller claim and a brief explanation of 

the differences between smaller claims 

proceedings and other proceedings 

before the Board; and 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend § 222.8 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 222.8 Response. 

* * * * * 

(f) Failure to file response. A failure 

to file a response within the required 

timeframe may constitute a default 17 

U.S.C. 1506(u), and the Board may begin 

proceedings in accordance with part 227 

of this subchapter. 

■ 9. Amend § 222.10 by revising 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 222.8 Response to counterclaim. 

* * * * * 

(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 under part 227 of 

this subchapter. 

■ 10. Add §§ 222.11 through 222.20 to 

read as follows: 

Sec. 

* * * * * 

222.11 Scheduling order. 

222.12 Amending pleadings. 

222.13 Consolidation. 

222.14 Additional parties. 

222.15 Written testimony on the merits. 

222.16 Hearings. 

222.17 Withdrawal of claims; dismissal. 

222.18 Settlement. 

222.19 Protective orders; personally 

identifiable information. 

222.20 Evidence. 

§ 222.11 Scheduling order. 

(a) Timing. Upon receipt of the second 

payment of the filing fee set forth in 

§ 201.3(g) of this subchapter and after 

completion of the 14-day period 

specified in the Board’s order pursuant 

to § 222.7, the Board shall issue an 

initial scheduling order through eCCB, 

subject to § 222.7(b)(1). 

(b) Content of initial scheduling order. 

The scheduling order shall include the 

dates or deadlines for: 

(1) Filing of a response to the claim 

by the respondent; 

(2) A pre-discovery conference with a 

Copyright Claims Officer (Officer) to 

discuss case management, including 

discovery, and the possibility of 

resolving the claims and any 

counterclaims through settlement; 

(3) Service of responses to standard 

interrogatories; 

(4) Service of documents in response 

to standard requests for the production 

of documents; 

(5) Requests for leave to seek 

additional discovery; 

(6) Close of discovery; 

(7) A post-discovery conference with 

an Officer to discuss further case 

management, including the possibility 

of resolving the claims and any 

counterclaims through settlement; and 

(8) Filing of each party’s written 

testimony and responses, pursuant to 

§ 222.15. 

(c) Conferences. In addition to those 

identified in paragraph (b) of this 

section, the Board may hold additional 

conferences, at its own election or at the 

request of any party. Requests for a 

conference and any responses thereto 

shall follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. All 

conferences shall be held virtually. 

(d) Amended scheduling order. The 

Board may amend the initial scheduling 

order— 

(1) Upon the clearance of a 

counterclaim by a Copyright Claims 

Attorney pursuant to § 224.1(c)(1) of this 

subchapter, to add a deadline for the 

service of a response by a claimant to a 

counterclaim and to amend other 

previously scheduled dates in the prior 

scheduling order; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30078 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Upon request of one or more of the 

parties to an active proceeding 

submitted through eCCB. Requests to 

amend the scheduling order and any 

responses thereto shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of 

this subchapter; 

(3) As necessary to adjust the 

schedule for conferences or hearings or 

the staying of the proceeding; 

(4) As necessary to facilitate 

settlement pursuant to § 222.18; or 

(5) Upon its own initiative in the 

interests of maintaining orderly 

administration of the Board’s docket. 

§ 222.12 Amending pleadings. 

(a) Amendments before service. A 

claimant who has been notified 

pursuant to § 224.1(c)(2) of this 

subchapter that a claim does not comply 

with the applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements may freely 

amend any part of the claim as part of 

an amended claim filed under 17 U.S.C. 

1506(f)(1)(B). A claimant who has been 

notified pursuant to § 224.1(c)(1) of this 

subchapter that a claim has been found 

to comply with the applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements may freely 

amend the claim once as a matter of 

course prior to service. Any claim that 

is amended shall be submitted for 

compliance review under § 224.1(a) of 

this subchapter. 

(b) Amendments during the opt-out 

period. A claimant may not amend a 

claim during the opt-out period for any 

respondent. 

(c) Amendment of counterclaim 

before response. A counterclaimant may 

freely amend its counterclaim once as a 

matter of course prior to filing of the 

response to the counterclaim. The filing 

of any amended counterclaim shall 

suspend the time for responding to the 

counterclaim and the counterclaim shall 

be submitted for compliance review 

under § 224.1(a) of this subchapter. A 

counterclaimant who has been notified 

pursuant to § 224.1(c)(2) of this 

subchapter that a counterclaim does not 

comply with the applicable statutory 

and regulatory requirements may amend 

any part of the counterclaim as part of 

an amended counterclaim filed under 

17 U.S.C. 1506(f)(2). The counterclaim 

respondent shall file a response to the 

amended counterclaim within 30 days 

following compliance review approval 

of the amended counterclaim. 

(d) All other amendments. In all other 

cases, a party may amend its pleading 

only with the Board’s leave. If the Board 

grants leave, any amendment shall be 

submitted for a compliance review 

under § 224.1(a) of this subchapter. 

(1) Time to respond. Unless the Board 

orders otherwise or as otherwise 

covered by this subchapter, any 

required response to an amended 

pleading must be made within the time 

remaining to respond to the original 

pleading or within 30 days after the 

Board’s notification that the amended 

pleading is compliant, whichever is 

later. 

(2) Procedure for request for leave to 

amend. The party seeking leave to 

amend must submit a request to the 

Board setting forth the reasons why an 

amended pleading is appropriate. 

Requests for leave to amend and any 

responses thereto shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of 

this subchapter. 

(3) Standard for granting leave to 

amend. In determining whether to grant 

leave to amend a pleading, the Board 

shall grant leave if justice so requires 

after considering whether any other 

party will be prejudiced if the 

amendment is permitted (including the 

impact the amendment might have on a 

respondent’s right to opt out of the 

proceeding), whether the proceedings 

will be unduly delayed if the 

amendment is permitted, and whether 

the basis for the amendment reasonably 

should have been known to the 

amending party before the pleading was 

served or during the time period 

specified in paragraph (a) of this 

section, along with any other relevant 

considerations. If leave is granted, it 

shall only be granted regarding the 

specific amendments described in the 

request. 

§ 222.13 Consolidation. 

(a) Consolidation. If a claimant has 

multiple active proceedings against the 

same respondent or that arise out of the 

same facts and circumstances, the Board 

may consolidate the proceedings for 

purposes of conducting discovery, 

submitting evidence to the Board, or 

holding hearings. Consolidated 

proceedings shall remain separate for 

purposes of Board determinations and 

any damages awards. 

(b) Timing. The Board may 

consolidate proceedings at any time 

upon its own authority or following 

consideration of a request by any party, 

with reasonable notice and opportunity 

to be heard provided to all affected 

parties. 

(c) Procedure. The party seeking 

consolidation must submit a request to 

the Board setting forth the reasons for 

the request, requesting a conference 

with the Board and the parties from 

each affected case, and providing the 

Board with the docket numbers for each 

affected proceeding. Requests for 

consolidation and any responses thereto 

shall follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. 

(d) Standard for granting request. In 

determining whether to grant a request 

to consolidate, the Board shall balance 

the need for and benefits of 

consolidation with the timeliness of the 

request and whether any undue 

prejudice has resulted from the delay in 

making the request. 

§ 222.14 Additional parties. 

(a) When applicable. A necessary 

party is a person or entity whose 

absence would prevent the Board from 

according complete relief among 

existing parties, or who claims an 

interest related to the subject of the 

proceeding such that reaching a 

determination in the proceeding may 

impair or impede that person’s or 

entity’s ability to protect that interest as 

a practical matter, or in whose absence 

an existing party would be subject to a 

substantial risk of incurring double, 

multiple, or inconsistent obligations 

because of that interest. 

(b) Failure to join a necessary party. 

At any time, any party who believes in 

good faith that a necessary party has not 

been joined, and therefore the case is 

unsuitable for Board proceedings, may 

file a request according to the 

procedures set forth in §§ 220.5(a)(2) 

and 224.2(c) of this subchapter. Any 

party opposing the request may file a 

response according to the procedures set 

forth in §§ 220.5(a)(2) and 224.2(c). If 

the Board determines that a necessary 

party has not been joined, it shall 

dismiss the proceeding without 

prejudice as unsuitable for CCB 

proceedings pursuant to § 224.2. 

(c) Intervention of a necessary party. 

At any time, a third party seeking to 

intervene on the ground(s)s that it is a 

necessary party may file a request 

setting forth the reasons for the request 

and requesting a conference with the 

Board. Requests to intervene and any 

responses thereto shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of 

this subchapter. After evaluating the 

parties’ submissions, the Board may 

hold a conference between the parties to 

the proceeding and the intervening 

party to address the request. 

(d) Board determination. (1) If the 

Board determines that the intervening 

party is not a necessary party, it shall 

deny the request and resume the 

proceeding, unless all parties agree that 

the party should be joined. 

(2) If the Board determines that the 

intervening party is a necessary party, it 

shall— 

(i) Permit the intervening party to join 

the proceeding, if no party indicated 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30079 

that it opposed the request to intervene; 

or 

(ii) Dismiss the proceeding without 

prejudice, if any party indicated that it 

opposed the request to intervene. 

§ 222.15 Written testimony on the merits. 

(a) Timing. After the close of 

discovery and by the times specified 

within the scheduling order, any party 

asserting a claim or counterclaim shall 

file written direct testimony in support 

of that claim or counterclaim. Any party 

responding to a claim or counterclaim 

shall file written response testimony 

within 45 days following the date of 

service of written direct testimony. Any 

party who asserted a claim or 

counterclaim may file written reply 

testimony within 21 days following the 

date of service of written response 

testimony. All written testimony shall 

be uploaded to eCCB. 

(b) Direct and response testimony. 

Written direct and response testimony 

shall consist of documentary evidence 

and a party statement, and may include 

witness statements. 

(1) Documentary evidence. (i) 

Documentary evidence must be 

accompanied by a statement that lists 

each submitted document and provides 

a brief description of each document 

and how it bears on a claim or 

counterclaim; and 

(ii) Direct or response documentary 

evidence shall only include documents 

that were served on opposing parties 

pursuant to the scheduling order, absent 

leave from the Board, which shall be 

granted only for good cause. 

(2) Witness statements. A witness 

statement must— 

(i) Be sworn under penalty of perjury 

by the witness; 

(ii) Be detailed as to the substance of 

the witness’s knowledge and must be 

organized into numbered paragraphs; 

and 

(iii) Contain only factual information 

based on the witness’s personal 

knowledge and may not contain legal 

argument. 

(3) Party statement. A party 

statement— 

(i) Shall set forth the party’s position 

as to the key facts and damages, as well 

as any position as to the law; 

(ii) Need not have a table of contents 

or authorities; 

(iii) Shall be limited to 12 pages, other 

than any optional table of contents or 

authorities, and shall meet the 

requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) of 

this subchapter; 

(iv) For a claimant or counterclaimant 

seeking damages for copyright 

infringement, shall include a statement 

as to whether the party is electing to 

seek statutory damages or actual 

damages and any profits. Alternatively, 

at any stage of the proceedings, either 

before or after the submission of written 

testimony, a claimant or 

counterclaimant may submit a statement 

following the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter 

indicating the election of the form of 

damages. This election may be changed 

at any time up until final determination 

by the Board; and 

(v) For a respondent or counterclaim 

respondent, may include a statement as 

to whether, if found liable on a claim or 

counterclaim, the party would 

voluntarily agree to an order to cease or 

mitigate any unlawful activity. Such an 

election must be made, or changed if 

made earlier, no later than the filing of 

the respondent’s or counterclaim 

respondent’s party statement, or at a 

hearing if one is ordered by the Board. 

Such an election may be considered in 

appropriate cases by the Board in 

determining an amount of damages, if 

any, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 1504. Such 

a statement will not be considered by 

the Board in any way in making its 

determination as to liability, and shall 

be considered only as to damages. 

(c) Reply testimony. Written reply 

testimony must be limited to addressing 

or rebutting specific evidence set forth 

in written response testimony. Written 

reply testimony may consist of 

documentary evidence, witness 

statements, and a party statement as set 

forth in this paragraph (c). 

(1) Documentary evidence. In addition 

to the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section, documentary evidence 

presented by a party as part of written 

reply testimony must be limited to 

documentary evidence required to 

contradict or rebut specific evidence 

that was presented in an opposing 

party’s written response testimony and 

shall not include any documentary 

evidence previously presented as part of 

the submitting party’s direct testimony. 

(2) Witness statements. In addition to 

the requirements of paragraph (b)(2) of 

this section, a reply witness statement 

must be limited to facts not previously 

included in that witness’s prior 

statement, and must be limited to facts 

that contradict or rebut specific 

evidence that was presented in an 

opposing party’s written response 

testimony. 

(3) Party statement. A party statement 

in reply must be limited to rebutting or 

addressing an opposing party’s written 

response testimony and may not include 

any discussion of the facts, the law, or 

damages that was included in that 

party’s direct party statement. A reply 

party statement shall meet the 

requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) of 

this subchapter and must be limited to 

seven pages. 

(d) Certification. All written 

testimony submitted to the Board must 

include a certification by the party 

submitting such testimony that it is 

accurate and truthful. 

(e) Request for hearing. Any party 

may include in a party statement a 

request for a hearing on the merits 

before the Board, consistent with 

§ 222.16. 

(f) No additional filing. Following 

filing of any written reply testimony, no 

further written testimony or evidence 

may be submitted to the Board, unless 

at the specific request of the Board or 

with the Board’s leave, or as appropriate 

at a hearing on the merits ordered by the 

Board. 

§ 222.16 Hearings. 

(a) Timing. In any action, the Board 

may hold a hearing following 

submission of each party’s written 

direct, response, and reply testimony if 

it determines that such a hearing is 

appropriate or advisable. The Board 

may decide to hold a hearing on its own 

initiative or after consideration of a 

request for a hearing from any party. 

(b) Virtual hearings. All hearings shall 

be held virtually and may be recorded 

as deemed necessary by the Board. 

(c) Requesting a hearing. A request for 

a hearing on the merits of a case may be 

included in a party statement, pursuant 

to § 222.15(e), but may also be 

submitted following the procedures set 

forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter 

no later than 7 days after the date by 

which reply testimony may be 

submitted under § 222.15(a). The Board, 

in its sole discretion, shall choose 

whether to hold a hearing, and may 

elect to hold a hearing absent a request 

from a party. 

(d) Content of request. Any request in 

a party statement for a hearing on the 

merits of a case shall consist of a short 

statement providing the reasons why the 

party believes the request should be 

granted. 

(e) Scheduling order. When the Board 

determines that a hearing on the merits 

of a case is appropriate, it will issue an 

amended scheduling order setting forth 

the date of the hearing and deadlines for 

any additional evidence requested by 

the Board or for a pre-hearing 

conference, if applicable. 

(f) Close of evidence. Following a 

hearing on the merits of a case, no 

additional written testimony or 

evidence may be submitted to the Board 

unless at the Board’s specific request or 

with leave of the Board for good cause 

shown. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30080 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 222.17 Withdrawal of claims; dismissal. 

(a) General. A party may request to 

withdraw its own claim or counterclaim 

by filing a written request with the 

Board seeking withdrawal, and therefore 

dismissal. Such written request shall 

consist of a brief statement seeking 

dismissal and shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of 

this subchapter. 

(b) Withdrawal before a response. If 

the written request is received before a 

response to the claim or counterclaim is 

filed with the Board, the Board shall 

dismiss the claim or counterclaim 

without prejudice, unless all parties 

agree in a written stipulation filed with 

the Board that the claim or counterclaim 

shall be dismissed with prejudice. 

(c) Withdrawal after a response. If the 

written request is received after a 

response to the claim or counterclaim is 

filed with the Board, the Board shall 

issue a final determination dismissing 

the claim or counterclaim with 

prejudice, unless the Board determines 

in the interests of justice that such 

dismissal shall be without prejudice or 

all parties agree in a written stipulation 

filed with the Board that the claim or 

counterclaim shall be dismissed without 

prejudice. 

(d) Effect of dismissal. Dismissal of a 

claim or counterclaim under this section 

will not affect remaining claims or 

counterclaims in the proceeding. 

§ 222.18 Settlement. 

(a) General. The Board shall facilitate 

voluntary settlement between the 

parties of any claims or counterclaims. 

The appropriateness of a settlement 

conference, at a minimum, shall be 

raised by the Board at the pre-discovery 

and post-discovery conferences set forth 

in § 222.11(b). 

(b) Requesting a settlement 

conference—(1) Timing. At any point in 

an active proceeding, some or all of the 

parties may jointly request a conference 

with an Officer to facilitate settlement 

discussions. 

(2) Form and content of request. The 

request can be made orally at any Board 

conference or it can be made in writing. 

If made in writing, the request shall 

consist of a brief statement requesting a 

settlement conference and indicating 

which parties join in the request. Parties 

may also include a request to stay the 

proceedings while settlement 

discussions are ongoing. Granting a 

request for a stay shall be at the Board’s 

discretion. Requests for a settlement 

conference and any responses thereto 

shall follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. 

(c) Scheduling settlement conference. 

If the request for a settlement 

conference, and any request for a stay, 

is jointly made among the parties, or if 

no party files a response within seven 

days of the date of service of the request, 

the Board shall schedule a settlement 

conference with all parties subject to the 

request. If one or more parties files a 

response, upon consideration of the 

objections and whether any claims or 

counterclaims may be resolved with 

only the consenting parties in 

attendance, the Board may schedule a 

conference with some or all parties. 

(d) Settlement proceedings. Three 

days prior to a settlement conference, 

each party participating in the 

conference shall submit a position 

statement to the presiding Officer by 

email and, when there is agreement 

among the parties, send such statement 

to the other participating parties outside 

of eCCB. The position statement shall 

not exceed five pages, and shall attach 

no more than 20 pages of exhibits, 

absent leave of the presiding Officer, 

although leave shall not be necessary 

should the page limit be exceeded due 

to an exhibit being a necessary 

agreement or contract. Settlement 

statements shall meet the requirements 

set forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter, 

but shall not be filed on eCCB. The 

statement must set forth: 

(1) A brief overview of the facts and 

contentions; 

(2) The relief sought, including the 

amount of damages, if any; 

(3) Whether or to what extent the 

alleged wrongful conduct is currently 

taking place; and 

(4) Any prior attempts at resolution, 

including any offers or counteroffers 

made to the other party. 

(e) Recusal of presiding Officer. The 

Officer presiding over the settlement 

conference shall not participate in 

rendering a determination in the 

proceeding, unless the other Officers 

cannot reach a consensus as to the 

determination. The presiding Officer 

may review the record and attend any 

hearing that is held but shall not 

actively participate in the hearing or any 

substantive discussion among the 

Officers concerning the proceeding or 

the determination, except that such 

discussions may be allowed once it is 

known that the other Officers cannot 

reach a consensus as to the 

determination. 

(f) Stay of proceeding. To provide the 

parties with an opportunity to pursue 

settlement and negotiate any resulting 

settlement agreement, the Board in its 

discretion may stay the proceeding for 

a period of 30 days concurrently with an 

order scheduling a settlement 

conference, at the time of or following 

the settlement conference, or at the 

request of the parties. The parties may 

request an extension of the stay in good 

faith to facilitate ongoing settlement 

discussions. Requests to stay or extend 

a stay of the proceeding and any 

responses thereto shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of 

this subchapter. If a settlement has not 

been reached at the time the stay, or any 

extension thereof, has expired, the 

Board shall issue an amended 

scheduling order to govern the 

remainder of the proceeding. 

(g) Settlement agreement. If some or 

all parties reach a settlement, such 

parties may submit to the Board a joint 

request to dismiss some or all of the 

claims and counterclaims. The parties 

may include a request that the Board 

adopt some or all of the terms of the 

settlement in its final determination. 

Joint requests for dismissal shall follow 

the procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) 

of this subchapter. 

(h) Effect of settlement agreement. 

Upon receipt of a joint request to 

dismiss claims due to settlement, the 

Board shall dismiss the claims or 

counterclaims contemplated by the 

agreement with prejudice, unless the 

parties have included in their request 

that the claims or counterclaims shall be 

dismissed without prejudice. If the 

parties have requested that the Board 

adopt some or all of the terms of the 

settlement in its final determination, the 

Board may issue a final determination 

incorporating such terms unless the 

Board finds them clearly 

unconscionable. 

§ 222.19 Protective orders; personally 

identifiable information. 

(a) Standard protective order. At the 

request of any party, the Board’s 

standard protective order, as described 

in this section, shall govern all 

discovery material exchanged during 

the proceeding to protect against 

improper use or disclosure. Requests for 

a standard protective order shall follow 

the procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) 

of this subchapter. 

(1) Standard of use. Discovery 

material received from another party 

may be used only in connection with 

the proceeding, and all copies must be 

returned or disposed of within 30 days 

of a determination or dismissal, or 

within 30 days of the exhaustion of the 

time for any review or appeal of the 

Board’s final determination, whichever 

is later. 

(2) Confidentiality. Discovery material 

may be designated as ‘‘confidential’’ 

only if the party reasonably and in good 

faith believes that it consists of: 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30081 

(i) Bona fide confidential financial 

information previously not disclosed to 

the public; 

(ii) Bona fide confidential and nonobvious business plans, product 

development information, or advertising 

or marketing plans previously not 

disclosed to the public; 

(iii) Any information of a truly 

personal or intimate nature regarding 

any individual not known by the public; 

or 

(iv) Any other category of information 

that the Board grants leave to designate 

as ‘‘confidential.’’ 

(3) Case-by-case basis. Parties must 

make confidentiality determinations on 

a document-by-document basis and 

shall not designate as ‘‘confidential’’ all 

discovery material produced in bulk. 

(4) Submitting confidential 

information. Confidential discovery 

materials, or references to or discussions 

of confidential discovery materials in 

other documents, may be submitted to 

the Board by either filing them under 

seal or redacting the confidential 

document. If filed under seal, the 

confidential document must be 

accompanied by a redacted copy that 

may be included in the public record. 

(5) Determination of confidentiality by 

the Board. After notice and an 

opportunity for the designating party to 

respond, the Board in its discretion may 

remove a confidentiality designation 

from any material on its own initiative 

or upon consideration of a request from 

a party. Parties must attempt to resolve 

disputes over confidentiality 

designations before bringing such 

disputes to the Board. Requests to 

remove a confidentiality designation 

and any responses thereto shall follow 

the procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) 

of this subchapter. 

(b) Custom protective orders. Custom 

protective orders negotiated by the 

parties are disfavored. The parties may 

request that the Board enter a custom 

protective order that has been 

negotiated by the parties and that may 

provide for additional protections for 

highly sensitive materials. Such a 

request must be accompanied by a 

stipulation between the parties that 

explains the need for such a custom 

protective order and shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of 

this subchapter. The custom protective 

order must be attached as an exhibit to 

the request. The Board may in its 

discretion decide whether to grant the 

parties’ request for a custom protective 

order. 

(c) Personally identifiable 

information. Regardless of whether 

discovery material has been designated 

as ‘‘confidential,’’ parties must redact 

social security numbers, taxpayer 

identification numbers, birth dates, 

health information protected by law, the 

names of any individuals known to be 

minors, and financial account numbers 

from any public filings. 

(d) Violations of protective order. 

Violations of a protective order may 

constitute bad-faith conduct pursuant to 

§ 232.3 of this subchapter. 

§ 222.20 Evidence. 

(a) Admissibility. All evidence that is 

relevant and not unduly repetitious or 

privileged shall be admissible. Evidence 

which has authentication or credibility 

issues will have its weight discounted 

accordingly. The Board reserves the 

right to discount evidence or not admit 

evidence with serious credibility issues 

entirely, or to request clarification from 

a party. 

(b) Examination of witnesses. All 

witnesses testifying at a hearing before 

the Board shall be required to take an 

oath or affirmation before testifying. At 

a hearing, any member of the Board may 

administer oaths and affirmations, ask 

questions of any witness, and each party 

shall have the opportunity to ask 

questions of each witness and the other 

parties. The Board shall manage the 

conduct of the hearing and may limit 

the number of witnesses or scope of 

questioning. 

(c) Exhibits in hearing—(1) 

Submission. Unless they are specifically 

excluded by the Board’s own initiative 

or due to the Board’s ruling on an 

objection raised by a party, all 

documents submitted by the parties 

through their statements submitted 

under § 222.15 shall be deemed 

admitted and marked as exhibits in the 

same order as presented through the 

documentary evidence a party 

submitted with the party statement. To 

the extent additional documents are 

allowed by the Board at a hearing on the 

merits, such evidence may also be 

presented as exhibits to all parties and 

marked by the presenting party starting 

with the next number after the exhibits 

attached to the party’s document 

statement. 

(2) Summary exhibits. The contents of 

voluminous documentary evidence 

which cannot be conveniently examined 

at the hearing may be presented in the 

form of a chart, summary, or 

calculation. Absent leave of the Board, 

evidence supporting the summary 

exhibit must have been produced to the 

other parties in discovery and admitted 

as exhibits, and the summary exhibit 

must be disclosed to the other parties in 

the proceeding at least seven days 

before the hearing. 

(d) New exhibits for use in crossexamination or redirect examination. 

Exhibits not submitted as part of written 

testimony may not be used at a hearing 

without leave of the Board. Leave to use 

such exhibits may be requested before 

or during the hearing. Requests to use 

an exhibit not submitted as part of 

written testimony and any responses 

thereto shall follow the procedures set 

forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. 

PART 224—REVIEW OF CLAIMS BY 

OFFICERS AND ATTORNEYS 

■ 11. The authority citation for part 224 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 12. Amend § 224.2 by revising 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 224.2 Dismissal for unsuitability. 

* * * * * 

(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 of unsuitability. If the 

proceeding is active, the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent may file a 

response within 30 days following filing 

of the claimant’s request. A request or 

response made under this paragraph 

shall not exceed 7 pages and shall meet 

the requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) 

of this subchapter. 

(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 that shall not exceed five pages 

providing the basis for such belief. An 

opposing party may file a response 

within 14 days setting forth the basis for 

such opposition to the request. A 

request or response made under this 

paragraph shall meet the requirements 

set forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of this 

subchapter. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30082 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 13. Part 225 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 225—DISCOVERY 

Sec. 

225.1 General practices. 

225.2 Standard interrogatories. 

225.3 Standard requests for the production 

of documents. 

225.4 Additional discovery. 

225.5 Disputes and sanctions. 

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

§ 225.1 General practices. 

(a) Standard discovery practice. 

Except as otherwise provided in this 

section, discovery in proceedings before 

the Copyright Claims Board (Board) 

shall be limited to the methods set forth 

in this part and shall use the standard 

forms provided on the Board’s website. 

Discovery responses and documents 

shall be served on the other parties in 

accordance with § 222.5(e) of this 

subchapter and shall not be filed with 

the Board unless as part of written 

testimony or as needed in support of 

other filings. 

(1) Certifications. All discovery 

material exchanged among the parties 

must include a certification by the party 

submitting such material. 

(i) For responses to interrogatories or 

any requests for admission permitted by 

the Board, the certification shall affirm 

that the responses are accurate and 

truthful to the best of the submitting 

party’s knowledge. 

(ii) For the production of documents, 

the certification shall affirm that the 

produced documents are genuine and 

unaltered to the best of the producing 

party’s knowledge. 

(2) Form of requests to Board. 

Requests to the Board related to 

discovery may be raised to the Board 

during a conference or by written 

request, as set forth in this section. 

(3) Reasonable investigation. Parties 

shall make a reasonable investigation 

under the circumstances to adequately 

respond to discovery requests. 

(b) Timing of discovery. The exchange 

of discovery material shall take place at 

the times and within the deadlines 

specified by the scheduling order. The 

Board may modify the discovery 

deadlines set forth in the scheduling 

order at the request of any party upon 

a showing of good cause or on its own 

initiative. Such requests may be made 

orally during a conference with the 

Board or by written request. Written 

requests for modification of a discovery 

deadline and any responses thereto 

shall follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. 

(c) Conferences. The Board shall hold 

a pre-discovery conference and a postdiscovery conference, as set forth in 

§ 222.11(b) of this subchapter. The 

Board may hold additional conferences 

to manage discovery and resolve any 

disputes, at its own election or at the 

request of any party. Requests for a 

discovery conference not involving a 

dispute and any responses thereto shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. 

Requests for a discovery conference 

involving a dispute and any responses 

thereto shall follow the procedures set 

forth in § 220.5(a)(2). Such conferences 

may be held by one or more Copyright 

Claims Officers. Conferences shall be 

held virtually. 

(d) Documents. As used in this part, 

the term ‘‘document’’ shall refer to any 

tangible piece of information— 

including writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, 

images, and other data or data 

compilations—stored in any medium 

from which information can be obtained 

either directly or, if necessary, after 

translation by the responding party into 

a reasonably usable form, whether in 

written or electronic form, an object, or 

otherwise. The Board shall read this 

definition broadly so that there is a 

comprehensive production of materials 

by each side needed to fairly decide 

matters before the Board, so long as that 

production can be easily accomplished 

by a layperson. 

§ 225.2 Standard interrogatories. 

(a) General. Parties in an active 

proceeding shall use the set of standard 

interrogatories provided on the Board’s 

website. Standard interrogatories shall 

consist of information pertaining to: 

(1) The identity of witnesses whom 

the parties plan to use in the 

proceeding, including contact 

information for the witnesses, if known, 

and a brief description of the subject 

matter on which they may testify; 

(2) The identity of any other 

individuals who may have material 

information related to the claims or 

defenses, including contact information 

for the individuals, if known; 

(3) Any agreement or other 

relationship between the parties 

relevant to the claim; 

(4) Any harm suffered or damages 

sought; and 

(5) Any materially responsive 

documents that the party is aware exist 

or once existed, but are not in the 

possession of that party. 

(b) For a party asserting infringement. 

In addition to paragraph (a) of this 

section, the standard interrogatories for 

a party asserting an infringement claim 

or responding to a claim for noninfringement shall consist of 

information pertaining to: 

(1) The allegedly infringed work’s 

copyright registration, to the extent such 

information differs from or adds to 

information provided in the claim; 

(2) For works requiring copyright 

formalities, the extent the allegedly 

infringed work complied with such 

copyright formalities; 

(3) The party’s ownership of the 

copyright in the allegedly infringed 

work; 

(4) Publication of the allegedly 

infringed work; 

(5) The creation date and creation 

process for the allegedly infringed work, 

including whether the work is a joint or 

derivative work or was created through 

employment or subject to an agreement; 

(6) Where the allegedly infringed 

work is a derivative work, the 

preexisting elements in the work, 

including ownership of those 

preexisting elements, and rights to use 

those preexisting elements; 

(7) A description of how the party 

believes the alleged infringer gained 

access to the allegedly infringed work; 

(8) The basis for the party’s belief that 

the opposing party’s activities constitute 

infringement of the allegedly infringed 

work; 

(9) The discovery of the opposing 

party’s alleged infringement by the 

party; 

(10) A description of any harm 

suffered and, to the extent known, a 

calculation of the damages requested by 

the party as a result of the alleged 

infringement; and 

(11) Any attempts by the party to 

cause the infringement to be ceased or 

mitigated prior to bringing the claim. 

(c) For a party asserting noninfringement. In addition to the 

information in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the standard interrogatories for 

a party responding to an infringement 

claim or asserting a claim for noninfringement shall consist of 

information pertaining to: 

(1) The party’s ownership of the 

copyright in the allegedly infringing 

material; 

(2) The dissemination history of the 

allegedly infringing material; 

(3) The creation date and creation 

process for the allegedly infringing 

material, including whether any 

allegedly infringing work is a joint or 

derivative work or was created through 

employment or subject to an agreement; 

(4) Where the allegedly infringing 

material is a derivative work, the 

preexisting elements in the work, 

including ownership of those 

preexisting elements, and rights to use 

those preexisting elements; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30083 

(5) Any information indicating that 

the party alleging infringement does not 

own a copyright in the allegedly 

infringed work; 

(6) All defenses to infringement 

asserted by the party and a detailed 

basis for those defenses. Defenses listed 

in timely answers and timely updated 

answers to the standard interrogatories 

shall be considered by the Board and 

will not require an amendment of the 

response to an infringement claim or an 

amendment of a claim for noninfringement; 

(7) The basis for any other reasons the 

party believes that its actions do not 

constitute infringement; 

(8) Any continued use or 

dissemination of the allegedly infringing 

material; and 

(9) For a party responding to 

infringement claims or counterclaims, 

the revenues and profits the party has 

received that are directly related to the 

sale or use of the allegedly infringing 

material, as well as the deductible 

expenses directly related to that sale or 

use, and any elements of profit for that 

sale or use that the party believes are 

attributable to factors other than the 

copyrighted work. 

(d) For a party asserting 

misrepresentation. In addition to the 

information in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the standard interrogatories for 

a party asserting a claim of 

misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. 

512(f) shall consist of information 

pertaining to: 

(1) The notification or counter 

notification that allegedly contained a 

misrepresentation; 

(2) The identity of the internet service 

provider to which the notification or 

counter notification was sent; 

(3) Identification and a description of 

any communications with the internet 

service provider, the parties, or others 

related to the notification or counter 

notification at issue; 

(4) The basis for the party’s belief that 

the notification or counter notification 

included a misrepresentation; and 

(5) The harm, including a description 

and calculation of damages, caused by 

the alleged misrepresentation. 

(e) For a party responding to 

misrepresentation claims. In addition to 

the information in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the standard interrogatories for 

a party responding to a claim of 

misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. 

512(f) shall consist of information 

pertaining to: 

(1) All defenses asserted to the 

misrepresentation claim and the basis 

for those assertions. Defenses listed in 

timely answers and timely updated 

answers to the standard interrogatories 

shall be considered by the Board and 

will not require an amendment of the 

response; 

(2) The basis for any other reasons the 

party believes that its statement did not 

constitute a misrepresentation; and 

(3) Identification and a description of 

any communications with the internet 

service provider, the parties, or others 

related to the notification or counter 

notification at issue. 

(f) Duty to update. A party has an 

obligation to update its interrogatory 

responses and serve updated responses 

on the other parties as soon as 

practicable after the discovery of new or 

updated information. 

§ 225.3 Standard requests for the 

production of documents. 

(a) General. Parties in an active 

proceeding shall use the relevant set of 

standard requests for the production of 

documents provided on the Board’s 

website. Standard requests for the 

production of documents shall include 

copies of: 

(1) All documents the party is likely 

to use in support of its claims or 

defenses; 

(2) All other documents of which the 

party is reasonably aware that conflict 

with the party’s claims or defenses in 

the proceeding; 

(3) All documents referred to in, or 

that were used in preparing, any of the 

party’s responses to standard 

interrogatories; and 

(b) For a party asserting infringement. 

In addition to the information in 

paragraph (a) of this section, the 

standard requests for the production of 

documents for a party asserting an 

infringement claim or responding to a 

claim for non-infringement shall 

include copies of: 

(1) The work claimed to be infringed, 

its copyright registration, and all 

correspondence with the Copyright 

Office regarding that registration; 

(2) The allegedly infringing material, 

if reasonably available; 

(3) Where the allegedly infringed 

work is a derivative work, documents 

showing the preexisting works used and 

related to ownership of and rights to use 

those preexisting elements; 

(4) Documents related to the allegedly 

infringing material, including 

communications about the allegedly 

infringing material; 

(5) Documents showing or negating 

the ownership or rights of the party 

claiming infringement in the works at 

issue, including agreements showing the 

ownership or transfer or rights in the 

works; 

(6) Documents sufficient to show the 

damages suffered by the party as a result 

of the alleged infringement; and 

(7) Documents showing attempts by 

the party to cause the cessation or 

mitigation of infringement prior to 

bringing the claim. 

(c) For a party asserting noninfringement. In addition to the 

information in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the standard requests for the 

production of documents for a party 

responding to an infringement claim or 

asserting a claim for non-infringement 

shall include copies of: 

(1) The allegedly infringing material; 

(2) Documents related to the allegedly 

infringed work, including 

communications regarding the allegedly 

infringed work; 

(3) Documents related to the creation 

of the allegedly infringing material, 

including documents showing or 

negating rights to use the allegedly 

infringing material; and 

(4) For a party responding to 

infringement claims or counterclaims, 

documents sufficient to show the 

revenues and profits the party has 

received directly related to the sale or 

use of the allegedly infringing material, 

as well as the deductible expenses 

directly related to that sale or use, and 

the elements of profit for that sale or use 

that the party believes are attributable to 

factors other than the copyrighted work. 

(d) For a party asserting 

misrepresentation. In addition to the 

information in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the standard requests for the 

production of documents for a party 

asserting a claim of misrepresentation 

under 17 U.S.C. 512(f) shall include 

copies of: 

(1) The notification or counter 

notification at issue; 

(2) Communications with the internet 

service provider concerning the 

notification or counter notification at 

issue; 

(3) Documents directly pertaining to 

the truth or falsity of any 

representations made in the notification 

or counter notification; and 

(4) Documents sufficient to show the 

damages suffered by the party as a result 

of the alleged misrepresentation. 

(e) For party responding to 

misrepresentation claims. In addition to 

the information in paragraph (a) of this 

section, the standard requests for the 

production of documents for a party 

responding to a claim of 

misrepresentation under 17 U.S.C. 

512(f) shall include copies of: 

(1) Communications with the internet 

service provider concerning the 

notification or counter notification at 

issue; and 

(2) Documents directly pertaining to 

the truth or falsity of any 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30084 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

representations made in the notification 

or counter notification. 

(f) Document searches and 

productions—(1) General. Each party 

shall have an obligation to conduct a 

reasonable search for any responsive 

documents of any files in its possession 

or under its control, including the files 

of any of the party’s agents, employees, 

representatives, or others acting on the 

party’s behalf who the party reasonably 

believes may have responsive 

documents. 

(2) Electronically stored information. 

Documents responsive to the standard 

requests for the production of 

documents, or any additional requests 

permitted by the Board, including 

electronically stored information (ESI), 

including emails and computer files. A 

reasonable search under the 

circumstances shall include the ESI of 

the party and the party’s agents, 

employees, representatives, or others 

acting on the party’s behalf who the 

party reasonably believes may have 

responsive documents, except that— 

(i) ESI searches need not exceed 

manual searches that are easily 

accomplished by a layperson; and 

(ii) Parties need not conduct searches 

that would reasonably require the 

assistance of third parties, such as a 

document vendor that the party would 

have to hire to assist with or accomplish 

document collection or storage. 

(3) Voluminous productions. 

Responses to document requests that 

include large amounts of irrelevant or 

duplicative material are prohibited and 

may constitute bad-faith conduct. 

(4) Duty to update. A party has an 

obligation to preserve all material 

documents and to update its production 

of documents by providing to the other 

parties any documents it later finds 

responsive to the Board’s standard 

requests for the production of 

documents or any other document 

requests allowed by the Board as soon 

as practicable after the discovery of such 

documents. 

(g) Privileged documents. Confidential 

communications with external counsel 

or in-house counsel reflecting or seeking 

legal advice related to the merits of the 

proceeding shall be considered 

privileged and need not be produced or 

logged. Parties must seek leave of the 

Board to withhold additional 

documents as privileged by filing a 

request with the Board. Requests to 

withhold additional documents as 

privileged and any responses thereto 

shall follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. 

§ 225.4 Additional discovery. 

(a) Requests for additional discovery. 

Any party may request additional 

discovery within the deadlines set forth 

in the scheduling order. 

(1) Allowable discovery. Except for 

the standard discovery provided in this 

part, any additional discovery requested 

must be narrowly tailored to the issues 

at hand, not covered by the standard 

discovery set forth in this part, highly 

likely to lead to the production of 

information relevant to the core issues 

of the matter, and not result in an undue 

burden on the party responding to the 

request. 

(2) Standard for additional discovery. 

The Board will grant a request for 

additional discovery upon a showing of 

good cause. In considering a request for 

additional discovery, the Board shall 

balance the needs and circumstances of 

the case against the burden of additional 

discovery on any party, along with the 

amount in dispute and the overall goal 

of efficient resolution of the proceeding. 

(3) Consent from parties. Prior to 

filing a request for additional discovery, 

the requesting party should make 

reasonable efforts to secure the consent 

of, or a compromise with, the other 

party regarding the proposed additional 

discovery request. 

(4) Form of request. Requests for 

additional discovery and any responses 

thereto shall follow the procedures set 

forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. 

Unless otherwise specified in this 

section, a request for additional 

discovery must— 

(i) Specifically indicate the type of 

additional discovery requested and the 

information sought, including the 

specific requests themselves; 

(ii) Set forth in detail the need for the 

request; and 

(iii) Indicate whether the other parties 

consent or object to the request. 

(b) Requests for expert witnesses. An 

expert witness may be used in a 

proceeding only with leave of the Board. 

The use of expert witnesses in 

proceedings before the Board is highly 

disfavored and requests shall be rarely 

granted. 

(1) Standard for permitting expert 

witnesses. The Board shall grant a 

request by a party to introduce an expert 

witness only in exceptional 

circumstances and upon a showing that 

the case cannot fairly proceed without 

the use of the expert. In considering a 

request for an expert witness, the Board 

shall balance the needs and 

circumstances of the case, and whether 

the request is made by one party or 

jointly among the parties, against the 

burden that permitting the expert 

testimony would impose on any other 

party, the costs to the opposing party of 

retaining a rebuttal witness, the amount 

in dispute, and the overall goal of 

efficient resolution of the proceeding. If 

the Board grants a request by a party to 

introduce an expert witness, an 

opposing party shall have the 

opportunity to introduce a rebuttal 

expert witness as a matter of course 

within an appropriate amount of time 

set by the Board. The Board will set a 

schedule for the service of the expert 

report and any rebuttal report and will 

adjust the dates in the existing 

scheduling order as needed. 

(2) Form of request. Requests for an 

expert witness and any responses 

thereto shall follow the procedures set 

forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. 

The request must specifically indicate 

the topics of the expert’s proposed 

testimony, the name of the proposed 

expert, and the anticipated cost of 

retaining the expert, and must set forth 

the basis and justifications for the 

request, and indicate whether the other 

parties consent or object to the request. 

(3) Form of expert testimony. Any 

expert testimony permitted by the Board 

shall be submitted along with the 

offering party’s written direct or 

response testimony in the form of an 

expert statement. An expert statement 

must— 

(i) Be sworn under penalty of perjury 

by the expert witness; 

(ii) Be organized into numbered 

paragraphs; 

(iii) Be detailed as to the substance of 

the expert’s opinion and the basis and 

reasons therefor; 

(iv) Disclose the facts or data 

considered by the expert witness in 

forming the expert witness’s opinions; 

(v) Describe the expert witness’s 

qualifications, including a list of all 

publications authored and speaking 

engagements in the previous 10 years; 

(vi) Include a list of all other cases in 

which the expert witness testified as an 

expert at trial or by deposition during 

the previous four years; and 

(vii) Include a statement of the 

compensation to be paid for the study 

and testimony in the case. 

(4) Unauthorized expert testimony. 

Any expert testimony that is introduced 

in any way without the Board’s express 

permission shall be stricken by the 

Board and shall not be considered in the 

Board’s determination. 

(c) Requests for admission. Requests 

for admission may be served in a 

proceeding only with leave of the Board. 

Requests for admission are disfavored 

and requests to serve requests for 

admission may only be granted at the 

Board’s discretion upon a showing of 

good cause. A request to serve requests 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30085 

for admission, and any responses, shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

(1) Subject matter. Requests for 

admission may pertain to: 

(i) Facts, the application of law to fact, 

or opinions about either; and 

(ii) The genuineness of any described 

documents, a copy of which must be 

attached to the request for admission. 

(2) Form of requests for admission. 

Each matter must be separately stated in 

a request for admission in a numbered 

paragraph. Compound requests for 

admission shall not be permitted. 

(3) Responses to requests for 

admission. A response to a request for 

admission must be served by the time 

specified by the Board. A matter 

admitted is conclusively established 

unless the Board, on request and for 

good cause shown, permits the 

admission to be withdrawn or amended. 

If a matter is not admitted, the answer 

must specifically deny it or state in 

detail why the responding party cannot 

truthfully admit or deny it. A denial 

must fairly respond to the substance of 

the matter, and when good faith requires 

that a party qualify an answer or deny 

only part of a matter, the answer must 

specify the part admitted and qualify or 

deny the rest. The responding party may 

assert lack of knowledge or information 

as a reason for failing to admit or deny 

only if the party states that it has made 

reasonable investigation and that the 

information it knows or can readily 

obtain is insufficient to enable it to 

admit or deny. 

(4) Failure to respond. A matter is not 

automatically admitted if a party fails to 

respond to a request for admission 

within the required timeframe. 

However, the Board may deem it 

admitted in the Board’s discretion 

subject to the Board’s power to apply 

adverse inferences to discovery 

violations under 17 U.S.C. 1506(n)(3) 

according to the procedures set forth in 

§ 225.5. 

(d) Depositions. Depositions shall not 

be permitted in proceedings before the 

Board. 

§ 225.5 Disputes and sanctions. 

(a) Obligation to attempt resolution. 

Parties shall attempt in good faith to 

resolve any discovery disputes without 

the involvement of the Board. A party 

must confer with an opposing party in 

an attempt to reach a resolution prior to 

raising any discovery dispute with the 

Board. 

(b) Request for conference to resolve 

dispute. If an attempt to resolve a 

discovery dispute fails, the party 

seeking discovery may file a request for 

a conference with the Board. Requests 

for conference to resolve a discovery 

dispute and any responses thereto shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. The 

request may attach communications 

related to the discovery dispute or 

documents specifically discussed in the 

request related to the inadequacy of the 

document production and shall: 

(1) Describe the dispute; 

(2) State that party’s position with 

respect to the dispute; 

(3) Explain the attempts made to 

resolve the dispute without the 

involvement of the Board; and 

(4) Attach any inadequate 

interrogatory responses or inadequate 

request for admission responses. 

(c) Determination by Board. Following 

receipt of the request and any response, 

the Board may schedule a conference to 

address the discovery dispute in its 

discretion. One or more Officers may 

participate in the conference. During or 

following the conference, or, if no 

conference is held, after the Board 

reviews the request and any responses, 

the Board shall issue an order resolving 

the discovery dispute and, in the event 

of a decision in favor of the aggrieved 

party, setting a deadline for compliance. 

(d) Failure to comply with order. If a 

party fails to timely comply with the 

Board’s discovery order, the party 

seeking discovery may send a notice to 

the noncompliant party giving the 

noncompliant party 10 days to comply. 

If the noncompliant party fails to 

comply within 10 days of receipt of the 

notice, the aggrieved party may file a 

request for sanctions with the Board. 

(e) Sanctions—(1) Form of request for 

sanctions. A request for sanctions and 

any response thereto shall be uploaded 

to eCCB and shall meet the 

requirements set forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of 

this subchapter. A request for sanctions 

shall attach the relevant and allegedly 

inadequate discovery responses already 

provided by the opposing party, except 

for disputes pertaining to responses to 

document requests, and shall set forth 

the basis for the request. 

(2) Standard for granting request. 

Following receipt of a request for 

sanctions and any response from the 

opposing party, the Board may hold a 

conference to address the request for 

sanctions. In the Board’s sole discretion 

and upon good cause shown, sanctions 

may be imposed if the opposing party is 

found to be noncompliant with the 

Board’s discovery order. 

(3) Relief. Sanctions imposed for 

noncompliance with a discovery order 

of the Board may include an adverse 

inference with respect to the disputed 

facts directly related to the discovery in 

question against the noncompliant 

party. 

(4) Implications for award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs. The Board 

may consider the assessment of 

discovery sanctions when considering 

the awarding of attorneys’ fees and costs 

during a final determination. 

■ 14. Part 226 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 226—SMALLER CLAIMS 

Sec. 

226.1 General. 

226.2 Requesting a smaller claims 

proceeding. 

226.3 Effect of counterclaims on a smaller 

claims proceeding. 

226.4 Nature of a smaller claims 

proceeding. 

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

§ 226.1 General. 

When total monetary relief sought in 

a claim does not exceed $5,000 

(exclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs), 

the claimant may choose to have the 

proceeding adjudicated under the 

procedures set forth in this part. The 

provisions of 37 CFR parts 220, 221, 

223, 224, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 

233, and 234 and 37 CFR 222.1 through 

222.10, 222.17, and 222.19 shall also 

apply to proceedings adjudicated under 

this part and no other procedures other 

than those set forth in this part shall 

apply, unless the Copyright Claims 

Board (Board) decides in its discretion 

that such application or non-application 

would not be in the interest of justice. 

§ 226.2 Requesting a smaller claims 

proceeding. 

A claimant may request consideration 

of a claim under the smaller claim 

procedures in this part at the time of 

filing a claim. The claimant may change 

its choice as to whether to have its claim 

considered under the smaller claim 

procedures at any time before service of 

the initial notice. If the claimant 

changes its choice, but the initial notice 

has already been issued, the claimant 

shall request reissuance of the initial 

notice indicating the updated choice. 

Once the claimant has served the initial 

notice on any respondent, the claimant 

may not amend its choice without 

consent of the other parties and leave of 

the Board. 

§ 226.3 Effect of counterclaims on a 

smaller claims proceeding. 

Where a claimant has chosen to 

proceed via a smaller claims 

proceeding, a respondent only may 

assert a counterclaim that seeks total 

monetary relief of $5,000 or less 

(exclusive of attorneys’ fees or costs). 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30086 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

Any permissible counterclaims asserted 

by a respondent shall be adjudicated 

under the procedures set forth in this 

part. 

§ 226.4 Nature of a smaller claims 

proceeding. 

(a) Proceeding before a Copyright 

Claims Officer. A smaller claims 

proceeding shall be heard by one 

Copyright Claims Officer (Officer). One 

of the three Officers shall hear smaller 

claims proceedings on a rotating basis at 

the Board’s discretion. 

(b) Initial scheduling order. Upon 

confirmation that a proceeding has 

become active and the claimant has paid 

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 pursuant 

to § 222.7 of this subchapter, the Board 

shall issue an initial scheduling order 

that shall include the dates or deadlines 

for filing of a response to the claim and 

any counterclaims by the respondent 

and an initial conference with the 

Officer presiding over the proceeding. 

The Board or presiding Officer may 

issue additional scheduling orders or 

amend the scheduling order at its own 

discretion or upon request of a party 

pursuant to § 222.11(d) of this 

subchapter. 

(c) Initial conference—(1) In general. 

An initial conference will take the place 

of the pre-discovery conference held in 

non-smaller claims proceedings. During 

the initial conference, the presiding 

Officer shall explain the steps of the 

proceeding, and the parties shall discuss 

the nature of the claims and any 

counterclaims and defenses as well as 

the possibility of settlement with the 

presiding Officer. While the presiding 

Officer in a smaller claims proceeding 

may discuss settlement with the parties, 

if a separate settlement conference is 

held, that settlement conference shall be 

held before an Officer who is not the 

presiding Officer. 

(2) Discovery. During the initial 

conference, the presiding Officer shall 

discuss with the parties whether 

additional documents and information 

beyond any materials attached to the 

claim and response are necessary to 

reach a determination. Any order 

requiring documents or information to 

be produced shall be narrowly tailored 

to the merits of the proceeding and 

highly likely to lead to the production 

of information relevant to the core 

issues of the matter and not result in an 

undue burden on any party. If the 

presiding Officer determines that such 

documents and information are 

necessary, the presiding Officer shall 

order the parties to serve such 

documents and information on each 

other and set the date for such service 

to be accomplished. 

(d) Merits conference—(1) Timing of 

merits conference. During or following 

the initial conference, the presiding 

Officer shall schedule a conference to 

further discuss the merits of the case. 

(2) Submission of materials before 

merits conference. No later than 14 days 

before the merits conference, each 

party— 

(i) Shall file with the presiding Officer 

evidence it wishes to be considered for 

the presiding Officer to decide the case 

as well as any evidence requested by the 

presiding Officer. All such evidence 

must have been served on the other 

parties to the proceeding before such 

filing, unless the evidence was received 

from the other side; 

(ii) May submit a written statement 

that set forth its positions as to the 

claims, defenses, and any 

counterclaims, along with any damages 

sought and the types of damages sought. 

Such written statement shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(b) of this 

subchapter and shall be limited to seven 

pages. No written responses shall be 

permitted; and 

(iii) May submit witness statements 

that comply with § 222.15(b)(2) of this 

subchapter. No later than seven days 

before the merits conference, an 

opposing party may request that the 

witness whose statement was submitted 

appear at the merits conference so that 

the party may ask the witness questions 

relating the witness’s testimony. The 

failure of a witness to appear in 

response to such a request shall not 

preclude the presiding Officer from 

accepting the statement, but the 

presiding Officer may take the inability 

to question the witness into account 

when considering the weight of the 

witness’s testimony. 

(3) Failure to submit evidence. If a 

party fails to submit evidence in 

accordance with the presiding Officer’s 

request, or submits evidence that was 

not served on the other parties or 

provided by the other side, the 

presiding Officer may discuss such 

failure with the parties during the 

merits conference or may schedule a 

separate conference to discuss the 

missing evidence with the parties. The 

presiding Officer shall determine an 

appropriate remedy, if any, for the 

failure to submit evidence in accordance 

with the presiding Officer’s request, 

including but not limited to drawing an 

adverse inference with respect to 

disputed facts, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

1506(n)(3), if it would be in the interests 

of justice. 

(4) Conduct of merits conference. 

During the merits conference, each party 

shall have an opportunity to address the 

materials submitted by any other party 

and to present their position on the 

claims, defenses, and any 

counterclaims, along with any damages 

sought, if any, to the presiding Officer. 

The presiding Officer may also ask 

questions to any party or any witness. 

(e) Proposed findings of fact. 

Following the merits conference, the 

presiding Officer shall prepare proposed 

findings of fact and shall serve the 

proposed findings of fact on each party. 

The proposed findings of fact shall 

include any adverse inference that the 

presiding Officer is considering 

applying due to a failure to submit 

evidence pursuant to paragraph (d)(3) of 

this section. Within 21 days from the 

date the proposed findings of fact are 

served— 

(1) Response to proposed findings of 

fact. Any party may submit a written 

response to the proposed written 

findings of fact, including any adverse 

inferences identified by the presiding 

Officer. Such written response shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(b) and be limited to five pages. 

Such written responses may not 

reference or attach any evidence that 

was not previously filed, unless the 

presiding Officer grants leave to do so. 

If the presiding Officer grants leave to 

reference or attach additional evidence, 

the other parties shall be provided an 

opportunity to respond to the new 

evidence in writing or during a 

conference; 

(2) Statement as to damages. To the 

extent the claimant or counterclaimant 

has not already made an election as to 

whether it is seeking actual damages or 

statutory damages, a claimant or 

counterclaimant seeking damages shall 

file a statement, which may be included 

in its response to the proposed findings 

of fact, as to whether the party is 

seeking statutory damages or actual 

damages and any profits. This election 

may be changed at any time up until a 

final determination; and 

(3) Statement as to voluntary 

agreement to stop or mitigate unlawful 

activities. A respondent or counterclaim 

respondent may inform the presiding 

Officer, at any time up to and including 

the merits conference, that if found 

liable on a claim or counterclaim, it 

would voluntarily agree to an order to 

cease or mitigate the unlawful activity. 

Such an election may be considered in 

appropriate cases by the presiding 

Officer in determining an amount of 

damages, if any, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 

1504. Such information will not be 

considered by the presiding Officer in 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30087 

any way in making its determination as 

to liability, and shall be considered only 

as to damages. 

(f) Final determinations. (1) After 

considering the information and 

arguments provided by the parties 

during the merits conferences and any 

other conferences ordered by the 

presiding Officer, along with any 

submissions filed by the parties, the 

presiding Officer shall issue a final 

determination. 

(2) If, as described in § 227.1 of this 

subchapter, a respondent fails to appear 

or participate in a proceeding brought 

under the procedures set forth in this 

part, the presiding Officer shall transfer 

the proceedings to proceed under the 

rules governing default proceedings 

under part 227 of this subchapter, 

which may result in a default 

determination or dismissal of the claim. 

If proceedings continue under the rules 

governing default proceedings under 

part 227, any default determination 

must be issued by no fewer than two 

Officers. If the respondent cures a 

missed deadline or requirement, as 

described under § 227.1(c) of this 

subchapter, the proceeding shall resume 

under the procedures set forth in this 

part and the presiding Officer shall 

issue a revised scheduling order, if 

necessary. 

(g) Additional conferences. In its 

discretion or upon the request of any 

party, the presiding Officer may hold 

additional conferences, including to 

manage the conduct of the proceeding, 

address disputes between the parties, 

settlement and engage in further 

discussion of the claims, counterclaims, 

or defenses and supporting evidence. 

Requests for a conference and any 

responses thereto shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of 

this subchapter. 

(h) No expert testimony. Parties may 

not submit expert testimony for 

consideration. Any expert testimony 

submitted shall be disregarded by the 

assigned Officer. 

■ 15. Part 227 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 227—DEFAULT 

Sec. 

227.1 Failure by respondent or 

counterclaim respondent to appear or 

participate in proceeding. 

227.2 Submission of evidence by claimant 

or counterclaimant in support of default 

determination. 

227.3 Notice of proposed default 

determination. 

227.4 Opportunity for respondent or 

counterclaim respondent to submit 

evidence. 

227.5 Issuance of determination. 

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

§ 227.1 Failure by respondent or 

counterclaim respondent to appear or 

participate in proceeding. 

(a) Notice of missed deadline or 

requirement. If a respondent or 

counterclaim respondent fails to file a 

response or fails, without justifiable 

cause, to meet any filing deadline or 

other requirement set forth in the 

scheduling order or other order, upon 

notice of a party or by its own initiative, 

the Copyright Claims Board (Board) may 

issue a notice to the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent following the 

missed deadline or requirement. 

Requests to issue a notice regarding a 

missed deadline or requirement and any 

responses thereto shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of 

this subchapter. 

(b) Contents of default notice—(1) 

First default notice. A notice issued 

under this section shall inform the 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

that failure to participate in the 

proceeding may result in the Board 

entering a default determination against 

the respondent or counterclaim 

respondent, including dismissal of any 

counterclaims asserted by the defaulting 

respondent, and shall explain the legal 

effects of a default determination. The 

notice shall provide the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent with 30 days 

from the date of the notice to cure the 

missed deadline or requirement. The 

notice shall be issued to the respondent 

or counterclaim respondent through 

eCCB, as well as by mail and all known 

email addresses. 

(2) Second default notice. If the 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

has failed to respond within 15 days 

after the first notice of the pendency of 

the default determination, the Board 

shall send a second notice to the 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

according to the procedures set forth in 

paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Such 

notice shall attach the first notice and 

shall remind the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent that it must 

cure the missed deadline or requirement 

within 30 days from the date of the first 

notice. 

(c) Response to notice. If the 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

cures the missed deadline or 

requirement within the time specified 

by the notice, the proceeding shall 

resume and the Board shall issue a 

revised scheduling order, if necessary. If 

the respondent or counterclaim 

respondent fails to timely cure but 

submits a response that indicates an 

intent to re-engage with the proceeding 

pursuant to the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter, the 

Board shall consider the response and 

either provide the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent with 

additional time to meet the deadline or 

proceed with the default determination 

process. If the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent fails to cure 

the missed deadline or requirement 

within the time specified by the notice 

and does not otherwise respond to the 

notice, the Board shall require the 

claimant or counterclaimant to submit 

evidence in support of a default 

determination, as set forth in § 227.2. 

(d) Multiple missed deadlines. A 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

may cure a missed deadline according 

to the procedure set forth in this section 

at least twice without default being 

issued. If the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent misses a third 

deadline in the scheduling order 

without good cause, the Board may, in 

its discretion, proceed directly to 

requiring submission of evidence to 

proceed with a default determination as 

set forth in § 227.2. 

§ 227.2 Submission of evidence by 

claimant or counterclaimant in support of 

default determination. 

(a) General. If a respondent or 

counterclaim respondent fails to appear 

or ceases to participate in the 

proceeding and the Board elects to 

proceed to a default determination, the 

Board shall require the claimant or 

counterclaimant to submit written direct 

testimony, as set forth in § 222.15(b) of 

this subchapter. 

(b) Additional evidence. Following 

submission of the claimant’s or 

counterclaimant’s written testimony in 

support of a default determination, the 

Board shall consider the claimant’s or 

counterclaimant’s submissions and may 

request any additional evidence from 

the claimant or counterclaimant within 

the claimant’s or counterclaimant’s 

possession. 

§ 227.3 Notice of proposed default 

determination. 

(a) Consideration of evidence. 

Following submission of evidence by 

the claimant or counterclaimant, as set 

forth in § 227.2, the Board shall review 

such evidence and shall determine 

whether it is sufficient to support a 

finding in favor of the claimant or 

counterclaimant under applicable law. 

As part of its review, the Board shall 

consider whether the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent has a 

meritorious defense. If the Board finds 

the evidence sufficient to support a 

finding in favor of the claimant or 

counterclaimant, it shall determine the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30088 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

appropriate relief and damages, if any, 

to be awarded. 

(1) If the Board determines that the 

evidence is sufficient to support a 

finding in favor of the claimant or 

counterclaimant, the Board shall 

prepare a proposed default 

determination. 

(2) If the Board determines that the 

evidence is insufficient to support a 

finding in favor of the claimant or 

counterclaimant, the Board shall 

prepare a proposed determination 

dismissing the proceeding without 

prejudice and shall provide written 

notice of such proposed determination 

to the claimant or counterclaimant. The 

claimant or counterclaimant may submit 

a response to the proposed 

determination within 30 days of the 

date of the notice of proposed 

determination. Such response shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(b) of this subchapter and be 

limited to seven pages. After 

considering any response from the 

claimant or counterclaimant, the Board 

shall either maintain its proposed 

determination and dismiss the 

proceeding without prejudice or 

determine that the evidence is sufficient 

to support a finding in favor of the 

claimant or counterclaimant and 

prepare a proposed default 

determination. 

(b) Proposed default determination. 

The proposed default determination 

shall include a finding in favor of the 

claimant or counterclaimant and the 

damages awarded, if any. The proposed 

default determination shall also include 

dismissal of any counterclaims asserted 

by the defaulting respondent. 

(c) Notice to respondent or 

counterclaim respondent. The Board 

shall provide written notice to the 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

of the pendency of the default 

determination and the legal significance 

of the default determination, including 

any liability for damages, if applicable, 

as set forth in 17 U.S.C. 1506(u)(2). The 

notice shall be accompanied by the 

proposed default determination and 

shall provide the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent 30 days, 

beginning on the date of the notice, to 

submit any evidence or other 

information in opposition to the 

proposed default determination. 

§ 227.4 Opportunity for respondent or 

counterclaim respondent to submit 

evidence. 

(a) Response to notice by respondent 

or counterclaim respondent. The 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

may submit in writing any evidence or 

information in opposition to the 

proposed default determination within 

30 days of the issuance of the proposed 

default determination absent an 

extension of that time by the Board. The 

form of that response shall follow the 

procedures for written response 

testimony under § 222.15(b) of this 

subchapter. If the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent fails to timely 

submit evidence but submits a response 

that indicates an intent to submit 

evidence in opposition to the proposed 

default determination, the Board shall 

consider the response and either 

provide the respondent or counterclaim 

respondent with additional time to 

submit evidence or proceed with issuing 

the default determination. 

(b) Response to respondent’s or 

counterclaim respondent’s submissions. 

If the respondent or counterclaim 

respondent provides any evidence or 

other information in response to the 

notice of the pending default 

determination, the other parties to the 

proceeding shall be provided an 

opportunity to address such a 

submission by following the procedures 

for written reply testimony under 

§ 222.15(c) of this subchapter within 21 

days of the respondent’s submission. 

(c) Hearings. The Board may hold a 

hearing related to default 

determinations at its discretion. 

§ 227.5 Issuance of determination. 

(a) Determination after respondent or 

counterclaim respondent submits 

evidence. If the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent provides 

evidence or information as set forth in 

§ 227.4, the Board shall consider all 

submissions, including any responses to 

the respondent’s or counterclaim 

respondent’s submission. The Board 

then shall maintain or amend its 

proposed default determination. The 

resulting determination shall not be a 

default determination and instead shall 

be a final determination. The 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

may not challenge such determination 

under 17 U.S.C. 1508(c)(1)(C) and may 

only request reconsideration pursuant to 

17 U.S.C. 1506(w) and the procedures 

set forth in part 230 of this subchapter. 

(b) Determination after respondent or 

counterclaim respondent fails to 

respond to notice. If the respondent or 

counterclaim respondent fails to 

respond to the notice of pending default 

determination, the Board shall issue the 

proposed default determination as a 

final determination. The respondent or 

counterclaim respondent may only 

challenge such determination to the 

extent permitted under 17 U.S.C. 

1508(c) or the procedures set forth in 

paragraph (c) of this section. 

(c) Vacating a default determination. 

If additional proceedings have not been 

initiated under 17 U.S.C. 1508(c), the 

respondent or counterclaim respondent 

may request in writing that the default 

determination be vacated and provide 

the reasons why the decision should be 

vacated. A request to vacate the default 

determination must be filed within 30 

days of the determination, shall be no 

more than 12 pages, and shall meet the 

requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) of 

this subchapter; and a response to that 

request must be filed within 30 days of 

the request to vacate, shall be no more 

than 12 pages, and shall meet the 

requirements set forth in § 220.5(b). The 

Board may vacate the default 

determination in the interests of justice. 

■ 16. Part 228 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 228—CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO 

PROCEED 

Sec. 

228.1 Claimant or counterclaimant’s failure 

to complete service. 

228.2 Claimant or counterclaimant’s failure 

to prosecute. 

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

§ 228.1 Claimant or counterclaimant’s 

failure to complete service. 

(a) Failure to serve a respondent who 

is not a necessary party. If a claimant 

fails to timely complete service on a 

respondent who is not a necessary 

party, pursuant to § 222.14 of this 

subchapter, the Copyright Claims Board 

(Board) shall dismiss that respondent 

from the proceeding without prejudice. 

The proceeding shall continue against 

any remaining respondents. 

(b) Failure to serve a respondent who 

is a necessary party. If a claimant fails 

to timely complete service on a 

respondent who is a necessary party, 

pursuant to § 222.14 of this subchapter, 

the Board shall dismiss the proceeding 

without prejudice. 

(c) Complete failure to serve 

respondents. For a claim to proceed, a 

claimant must complete service on at 

least one respondent. If a claimant does 

not timely file any proof of service, the 

Board shall dismiss the proceeding 

without prejudice. 

§ 228.2 Claimant or counterclaimant’s 

failure to prosecute. 

(a) General. If a claimant or 

counterclaimant fails to proceed in an 

active proceeding without justifiable 

cause, as demonstrated by a failure to 

meet any filing deadline or requirement 

set forth in the scheduling order or other 

order, upon request of a party or on its 

own initiative, the Board shall issue a 

notice following the missed deadline or 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30089 

requirement. Requests to issue a notice 

regarding a missed deadline or 

requirement and any responses thereto 

shall follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. 

(b) Contents of failure to prosecute 

notice. (1) A notice issued under 

paragraph (a) of this section shall inform 

the claimant or counterclaimant that 

failure to proceed in the proceeding may 

result in the Board issuing a 

determination dismissing the claimant’s 

or counterclaimant’s claims, including 

an award of attorneys’ fees and costs 

where appropriate, and shall explain the 

legal effects of such a determination. 

The notice shall provide the claimant or 

counterclaimant with 30 days, 

beginning on the date of the notice, to 

respond to the notice and meet the 

missed deadline or requirement. The 

notice shall be issued to the claimant or 

counterclaimant by mail and all known 

email addresses. 

(2) If the claimant or counterclaimant 

has failed to respond 15 days after the 

notice of the failure to proceed, the 

Board shall send a second notice to the 

claimant or counterclaimant according 

to the procedures set forth in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. Such notice shall 

attach the first notice and shall remind 

the claimant or counterclaimant that it 

must respond and meet the missed 

deadline or requirement within 30 days 

from the date of the first notice. 

(c) Response to failure to prosecute 

notice. (1) If the claimant or 

counterclaimant cures the missed 

deadline or requirement within the time 

specified by the notice, the proceeding 

shall resume and the Board shall issue 

a revised scheduling order, if necessary. 

(2) If the claimant or counterclaimant 

fails to cure the missed deadline or 

requirement within the time specified 

by the notice but submits a response 

that indicates an intent to re-engage 

with the proceeding pursuant to the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of 

this subchapter, the Board shall 

consider the response and either 

provide the claimant or counterclaimant 

with additional time to cure the missed 

deadline or requirement or issue a 

determination dismissing the claims or 

counterclaims. 

(3) If the claimant or counterclaimant 

fails to cure the missed deadline or 

requirement within the time specified 

by the notice and does not otherwise 

respond to the notice, the Board shall 

issue a determination dismissing the 

claims or counterclaims. 

(d) Determination dismissing claims 

or counterclaims. A determination 

dismissing the claims or counterclaims 

for failure to proceed in the active 

proceeding shall be with prejudice and 

shall include an award of attorneys’ fees 

and costs pursuant to § 232.3 of this 

subchapter, if appropriate. The claimant 

or counterclaimant may only challenge 

such determination to the extent 

permitted under 17 U.S.C. 1508Ö or the 

procedures set forth in paragraph(e) of 

this section. 

(e) Vacating a determination 

dismissing claims or counterclaims. If 

additional proceedings have not been 

initiated under 17 U.S.C. 1508(c), the 

claimant or counterclaimant may 

request in writing that the 

determination be vacated and provide 

the reasons supporting the request. A 

request to vacate the determination 

must be filed within 30 days of the 

determination, shall be no more than 12 

pages, and shall meet the requirements 

set forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter; 

and a response to that request must be 

filed within 30 days of the request to 

vacate, shall be no more than 12 pages, 

and shall meet the requirements set 

forth in § 220.5(b). The Board may 

vacate the determination of dismissal in 

the interests of justice. 

(f) Multiple missed deadlines. A 

claimant or counterclaimant may cure a 

missed deadline according to the 

procedure set forth in this section at 

least twice without dismissal for failure 

to prosecute. If the claimant or 

counterclaimant misses a third deadline 

in the scheduling order without good 

cause, the Board may, in its discretion, 

proceed directly to issuing a 

determination dismissing the claims or 

counterclaims for failure to proceed 

under paragraph (d) of this section. 

■ 17. Part 229 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 229—RECORDS AND 

PUBLICATION 

Sec. 

229.1 Access to records and proceedings. 

229.2 Record certification. 

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

§ 229.1 Access to records and 

proceedings. 

(a) Official written record. 

Submissions by parties to a proceeding 

and documents issued by the Copyright 

Claims Board (Board) shall constitute 

the official written record. 

(b) Access to record. Any member of 

the public may inspect the official 

written record through eCCB, except 

any materials that have been marked 

confidential pursuant to § 222.19 of this 

subchapter. 

(c) Attendance at hearing. Attendance 

at a Board hearing, including virtual 

hearings, is limited to the parties to the 

proceeding, including any legal counsel 

or authorized representatives, and any 

witnesses, except with leave of the 

Board. The Board may order that a 

witness be excluded from a hearing 

except when a question is directed to 

the witness. A request for attendance 

may be made in writing. Requests for a 

third-party non-witness to attend a 

hearing and any responses thereto shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. 

(d) Hearing transcript. The Board may 

cause a transcript of a hearing to be 

made by using an official reporter or any 

technology that is available to the 

Board. At the request of any party, the 

Board may designate an official reporter 

to attend and transcribe a hearing or to 

prepare a transcript from a recording of 

a hearing. Requests to designate an 

official reporter and any responses 

thereto shall follow the procedures set 

forth in § 220.5(a)(1) of this subchapter. 

The requesting party or parties shall pay 

the reporter directly for the cost of 

creating an official transcript. 

§ 229.2 Record certification. 

Upon a written request to the Records 

Research and Certification Section of 

the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to 37 

CFR 201.2(1), and payment of the 

appropriate fee pursuant to 37 CFR 

201.3, the Board will certify the official 

record of a proceeding. 

■ 18. Part 230 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 230—REQUESTS FOR 

RECONSIDERATION 

Sec. 

230.1 General. 

230.2 Request for reconsideration. 

230.3 Response to request. 

230.4 No new evidence. 

230.5 Determination. 

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

§ 230.1 General. 

This part prescribes rules pertaining 

to procedures for reconsideration of a 

final determination issued by the 

Copyright Claims Board (Board). A party 

may request reconsideration according 

to the procedures in this part if the party 

identifies a clear error of law or fact 

material to the outcome or a technical 

mistake. 

§ 230.2 Request for reconsideration. 

Upon receiving a final determination 

from the Board, any party may request 

that the Board reconsider its 

determination. Such a request must be 

filed within 30 days of the 

determination, shall be no more than 12 

pages, and shall meet the requirements 

set forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter. 

The request must identify a clear error 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30090 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

of law or fact that was material to the 

outcome or a technical mistake. The 

request shall not merely repeat any oral 

or written argument made to the Board 

as part of the proceeding but shall be 

specific as to the purported error or 

technical mistake that is the subject of 

the request. For the purposes of this 

section, the term final determination 

shall include an amended final 

determination. 

§ 230.3 Response to request. 

A party opposing a request for a 

reconsideration may file a response to 

the request within 30 days of the date 

of service of the request. Such response 

shall be no more than 12 pages and shall 

meet the requirements set forth in 

§ 220.5(b) of this subchapter. 

§ 230.4 No new evidence. 

Evidence that was not previously 

submitted to the Board as part of written 

testimony or at a hearing or in response 

to a specific request for evidence from 

the Board shall not be submitted as part 

of a request for reconsideration or a 

response to a request, except where the 

party demonstrates, through clear and 

convincing evidence, that the evidence 

was not available to that party in the 

exercise of reasonable diligence prior to 

the submission of written testimony or 

prior to the hearing. 

§ 230.5 Determination. 

After the filing of response papers or 

after the time for a party opposing the 

request for reconsideration to file a 

response has elapsed, the Board shall 

consider the request and any response 

and shall either deny the request for 

reconsideration or issue an amended 

final determination. The Board will base 

its decision on the party’s written 

submissions. 

■ 19. Part 231 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 231—REGISTER’S REVIEW 

Sec. 

231.1 General. 

231.2 Request for Register’s review. 

231.3 Response to request for Register’s 

review. 

231.4 No new evidence. 

231.5 Standard of review. 

231.6 Determination. 

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

§ 231.1 General. 

This part prescribes rules pertaining 

to procedures for review by the Register 

of Copyrights of a final determination 

by the Copyright Claims Board (Board). 

A party whose request for 

reconsideration has been denied under 

§ 230.5 of this subchapter may seek 

review of the final determination by the 

Register of Copyrights not later than 30 

days after a request for reconsideration 

has been denied in whole or in part. 

§ 231.2 Request for Register’s review. 

A party may not file for review of the 

Board’s final determination by the 

Register of Copyrights unless it has first 

filed, and had denied, a request for 

reconsideration. Where the Board has 

denied a request for reconsideration, the 

party who requested reconsideration 

may request review of the final 

determination by the Register of 

Copyrights. Such a request must be filed 

within 30 days of the denial of a request 

for reconsideration, shall be no more 

than 12 pages, and shall meet the 

requirements set forth in § 220.5(b) of 

this subchapter. The request must 

include the reasons the party believes 

there was an abuse of discretion in 

denying the request for reconsideration. 

The request must be accompanied by 

the filing fee set forth in 37 CFR 

201.3(g)(3). 

§ 231.3 Response to request for Register’s 

review. 

A party opposing the request for 

review may file a response to the 

request for review within 30 days of the 

date of service of the request. Such 

response shall be no more than 12 pages 

and shall meet the requirements set 

forth in § 220.5(b) of this subchapter. 

The request must include the reasons 

the party believes there was no abuse of 

discretion in denying the request for 

reconsideration. No reply filings shall 

be permitted. 

§ 231.4 No new evidence. 

Evidence that was not previously 

submitted to the Board as part of written 

testimony or at a hearing or in response 

to a specific request for evidence from 

the Board shall not be submitted as part 

of a request for review or a response to 

a request for review. 

§ 231.5 Standard of review. 

The Register’s review shall be limited 

to consideration of whether the Board 

abused its discretion in denying 

reconsideration of the determination. 

§ 231.6 Determination. 

After the filing of response papers or 

after the time for a party opposing the 

request for review to file a response has 

elapsed, the Register shall consider the 

request and any response and shall 

either deny the request for review or 

remand the proceeding to the Board for 

reconsideration of issues specified in 

the remand and for issuance of an 

amended final determination. The 

Register will base such a decision on the 

party’s written submissions. 

■ 20. Part 232 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 232—PARTY CONDUCT 

Sec. 

232.1 General. 

232.2 Representations to the Board. 

232.3 Bad-faith conduct. 

232.4 Bar on initiating and participating in 

claims. 

232.5 Legal counsel and authorized 

representative conduct. 

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

§ 232.1 General. 

(a) For purposes of this part, a 

participant includes all parties, 

including any legal counsel or other 

authorized representatives participating 

in CCB proceedings. 

(b) All participants shall act with the 

utmost respect for others and shall 

behave ethically and truthfully in 

connection with all submissions and 

appearances before the Copyright 

Claims Board (Board). 

§ 232.2 Representations to the Board. 

By submitting materials or advocating 

positions before the Board, a participant 

certifies that to the best of the 

participant’s knowledge, information, 

and belief, formed after a reasonable 

inquiry under the circumstances: 

(a) It is not being presented for any 

improper purpose; 

(b) Any legal contentions are made in 

good faith based on the participant’s 

reasonable understanding of existing 

law; 

(c) Any factual contentions have 

evidentiary support or, if specifically so 

identified, will likely have evidentiary 

support after a reasonable opportunity 

for further investigation or discovery; 

and 

(d) Any denials of factual contentions 

have evidentiary support or, if 

specifically so identified, are reasonably 

based on belief or a lack of information. 

§ 232.3 Bad-faith conduct. 

(a) General. The Board shall award 

costs and attorneys’ fees as part of a 

determination where it is established 

that a participant engaged in bad-faith 

conduct, unless such an award would 

be inconsistent with the interests of 

justice. 

(b) Allegations of bad-faith conduct— 

(1) On the Board’s initiative. On its own, 

and prior to a final determination, the 

Board may order a participant to show 

cause why certain conduct does not 

constitute bad-faith conduct. Within 14 

days, the participant accused of badfaith conduct shall file a response to this 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 30091 

order, which shall follow the 

procedures set forth in § 220.5(a)(2). 

(2) On a party’s initiative. A party that 

in good faith believes that a participant 

has engaged in bad-faith conduct, may 

file a request for a conference with the 

Board, describing the alleged bad-faith 

conduct and attaching any relevant 

exhibits. Requests for a conference 

concerning allegations of bad-faith 

conduct and any responses thereto shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. 

(c) Establishing bad-faith conduct. 

After the response of an accused 

participant has been filed under 

paragraph (b) of this section, or the time 

to file such a response has passed, the 

Board shall either make a determination 

that no bad-faith conduct occurred or 

schedule a conference concerning the 

allegations. 

(d) Determining the award. A 

determination as to any award of 

attorneys’ fees and costs due to badfaith conduct shall be made as part of 

the final determination. In determining 

whether to award attorneys’ fees and 

costs due to bad-faith conduct, and the 

amount of any such award, the Board 

shall consider the requests and 

responses submitted, any arguments on 

the issue, and the accused participant’s 

behavior in other Board proceedings. 

Such an award shall be limited to an 

amount of not more than $5,000, 

unless— 

(1) The adversely affected party 

appeared pro se in the proceeding, in 

which case the award shall be limited 

to costs in an amount of not more than 

$2,500; or 

(2) Extraordinary circumstances are 

present, such as a demonstrated pattern 

or practice of bad-faith conduct, in 

which case the Board may award costs 

and attorneys’ fees in excess of the 

limitations in this section. 

§ 232.4 Bar on initiating and participating 

in claims. 

(a) General. A participant that has 

been found to have engaged in bad-faith 

conduct on more than one occasion 

within a 12-month period shall be 

subject to the penalties set forth in 

paragraph (d) of this section. 

(b) Allegations of multiple instances 

of bad-faith conduct—(1) On the 

Board’s initiative. On its own, and at 

any point during a proceeding, the 

Board may order a participant to show 

cause why certain conduct engaged in 

on more than one occasion within a 12- 

month period does not constitute a 

pattern of bad-faith conduct. Within 14 

days, such participant shall file a 

response to this order, which shall 

follow the procedures set forth in 

§ 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. 

(2) On a party’s initiative. A party that 

in good faith believes that a participant 

has engaged in bad-faith conduct before 

the Board on more than one occasion 

within a 12-month period, may file a 

request for a conference with the Board 

at any point after a proceeding has been 

initiated. Such a request shall describe 

the alleged instances of bad-faith 

conduct, include the CCB case numbers 

for any other instances of bad-faith 

conduct if known, and attach any 

relevant exhibits. Such a request filed 

by a respondent before the time to opt 

out of the proceeding has expired shall 

not operate as a waiver of that 

respondent’s right to opt out of the 

proceeding. Requests for a conference 

concerning allegations of a pattern of 

bad-faith conduct and any responses 

thereto shall follow the procedures set 

forth in § 220.5(a)(2) of this subchapter. 

(c) Establishing a pattern of bad-faith 

conduct. After an accused participant’s 

response has been filed under paragraph 

(b) of this section, or the time to file 

such a response has passed, the Board 

shall either make a determination that 

the participant has not engaged in badfaith conduct before the Board on more 

than one occasion within a 12-month 

period, or shall schedule a conference 

concerning the allegations. An award of 

attorneys’ fees or costs against an 

accused party, pursuant to § 232.3, 

within the prior 12 months shall 

establish an instance of bad-faith 

conduct within the requisite time 

period. The Board may consider other 

evidence of bad-faith conduct by the 

accused participant that did not result 

in an award of attorneys’ fees or costs 

pursuant to § 232.3, including but not 

limited to, claims that did not proceed 

because they were reviewed by a 

Copyright Claims Attorney and found to 

be noncompliant or where proceedings 

were initiated but the respondent opted 

out. 

(d) Penalties. In determining whether 

to bar a participant from initiating 

claims or a legal counsel or authorized 

representative from participating on a 

party’s behalf, the Board shall consider 

the requests and responses submitted by 

the parties, any arguments on the issue, 

and the accused participant’s behavior 

in other Board proceedings. The Board 

shall issue its determination in writing. 

If the Board determines that the accused 

participant has engaged in bad-faith 

conduct on more than one occasion 

within a 12-month period, such 

determination shall include: 

(1) A provision that the accused 

participant be barred from initiating a 

claim, or in the case of a legal counsel 

or authorized representative, barred 

from participating on a party’s behalf, 

before the Board for a period of 12 

months beginning on the date on which 

the Board makes such a finding; 

(2) In the case of a pattern of bad-faith 

conduct by a party, dismissal without 

prejudice of any proceeding commenced 

by that claimant or respondent or by the 

legal counsel or authorized 

representative on behalf of a party that 

is still pending before the Board at the 

time the finding is made, except that an 

active proceeding shall be dismissed 

only if the respondent to that 

proceeding provides written consent to 

the dismissal; and 

(3) In the case of a pattern of bad-faith 

conduct by a legal counsel or authorized 

representative, a provision that the 

representative be barred from 

representing any party before the Board 

for a period of 12 months beginning on 

the date on which the Board makes such 

a finding. In deciding whether the legal 

counsel or authorized representative 

shall be barred from representing other 

parties in already pending proceedings, 

the Board may take into account the 

hardship to the parties represented by 

the sanctioned representative. If a legal 

counsel or authorized representative is 

barred from further representing a party 

in a pending claim, the Board will 

consider requests from that party asking 

the Board to amend the scheduling 

order or issue a stay of the pending 

action to allow that party to find other 

representation. Whether to amend the 

scheduling order or issue a stay shall be 

at the Board’s discretion. 

§ 232.5 Legal counsel and authorized 

representative conduct. 

(a) Notices of appearance. If a party 

elects to be represented by legal counsel 

or other authorized representative in a 

proceeding, such legal counsel or 

authorized representative, other than 

the legal counsel or authorized 

representative who filed the claim on 

the claimant’s behalf, must file a request 

to link their eCCB user account to the 

case and to the party or parties in that 

case whom they represent. The legal 

counsel or authorized representative 

must make sure that their eCCB user 

account accurately contains the legal 

counsel’s bar number in a State in 

which the legal counsel has been 

admitted to practice (if applicable), and 

the legal counsel or authorized 

representative’s mailing address, email 

address, and telephone number. If a 

legal counsel or authorized 

representative wishes to withdraw its 

representation, the legal counsel or 

authorized representative must file a 

Request to Withdraw Representation. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3
30092 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 95 / Tuesday, May 17, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Bar admissions. A legal counsel 

must be a member in good standing of 

the bar of the highest court of a State, 

the District of Columbia, or any territory 

or commonwealth of the United States. 

A law student representative must 

qualify under regulations governing law 

student representation of a party set 

forth in part 234 of this subchapter. The 

legal counsel or authorized 

representative must file with the Board 

a written statement under penalty of 

perjury that the legal counsel or 

authorized representative is currently 

qualified and is authorized to represent 

the party on whose behalf the legal 

counsel or authorized representative 

appears. 

(c) Disbarred legal counsel. Any legal 

counsel who has been disbarred by any 

Federal court, a court of any State, the 

District of Columbia, or any territory or 

commonwealth of the United States 

shall not be allowed to represent a party 

before the Board. If a legal counsel in 

any proceeding active or pending before 

the Board is disbarred, the legal counsel 

must report the disbarment to the Board 

and withdraw representation from any 

proceeding. 

(d) Duties toward the Board and the 

parties. A legal counsel or authorized 

representative has a duty of candor and 

impartiality toward the Board, and a 

duty of fairness toward opposing 

parties. In assessing whether a legal 

counsel has breached its duties, the 

Board shall consider the rules of 

professional conduct of the District of 

Columbia and the State in which the 

legal counsel practices. 

(e) Penalties for violation. Any legal 

counsel or authorized representative 

found to be in violation of any of the 

rules of conduct as set forth in this 

section, or who is otherwise found to be 

behaving unethically or inappropriately 

before the Board, may be barred from 

representing parties in proceedings 

before the Board for a period of twelve 

months. 

■ 21. Part 233 is added to read as 

follows: 

PART 233—LIMITATION ON 

PROCEEDINGS 

Sec. 

233.1 General. 

233.2 Limitation on proceedings. 

233.3 Temporary limitations on 

proceedings. 

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

§ 233.1 General. 

This part prescribes rules pertaining 

to the management of the Copyright 

Claims Board’s (Board’s) docket and 

prevention of abuse of the Board’s 

proceedings. 

§ 233.2 Limitation on proceedings. 

(a) Maximum number of proceedings. 

The number of Copyright Claims Board 

proceedings that may be filed by a 

claimant and the number of proceedings 

a solo practitioner or law firm may file 

on behalf of claimants in any 12-month 

period shall be limited in accordance 

with this section. A proceeding shall 

count toward the numerical limitation 

as soon as it is filed, regardless of how 

the proceeding is resolved, whether it is 

found to be noncompliant under § 224.1 

or unsuitable under § 224.2 of this 

subchapter, voluntarily dismissed, or 

fails to become active due to a 

respondent’s opt-out. Neither 

amendments to a claim, nor 

counterclaims filed in response to a 

claim shall count as additional claims in 

determining whether the limit has been 

reached. The following limitations shall 

apply: 

(1) A claimant, including a corporate 

claimant’s parents, subsidiaries, and 

affiliates, shall file no more than 30 

proceedings in any 12-month period. 

(2) A sole practitioner shall file no 

more than 40 CCB proceedings on 

behalf of claimants in any 12-month 

period. 

(3) A law firm shall file no more than 

80 CCB proceedings on behalf of 

claimants in any 12-month period. 

(b) Circumvention of limit. If a 

claimant files a claim in excess of the 

limitation set forth in paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section, such claim shall be 

dismissed without prejudice. If a sole 

practitioner or legal counsel associated 

with a law firm files a claim in excess 

of the limitation set forth in paragraph 

(a)(2) or (3) of this section, the legal 

counsel or law firm at issue shall be 

ordered to withdraw from the 

proceeding and the Board may stay the 

proceeding for 60 days, which may be 

extended for good cause shown, for the 

claimant to retain new legal counsel. It 

may be considered bad-faith conduct 

under § 232.3 for a party to take any 

action for the sole purpose of avoiding 

the limitation on the number of 

proceedings that may be filed as set 

forth in this section. 

(c) Law students, law clinics, and pro 

bono legal services. The limitations in 

this section do not apply to law students 

or a law clinic or pro bono legal services 

organization with a connection to the 

participating law student’s law school. 

§ 233.3 Temporary limitations on 

proceedings. 

(a) Moratorium on new claims. If the 

Board has determined that the number 

of pending cases before it has 

overwhelmed the capacity of the Board, 

the Board may impose a temporary stay 

on the filing of claims. The Board shall 

publish an announcement of that 

determination on its website, stating the 

effective date of the stay, and the 

duration of the stay, not to exceed six 

months. 

(b) Exception to moratorium. If a 

claimant’s statute of limitations under 

17 U.S.C. 1504(b) is about to expire 

during the stay issued under paragraph 

(a) of this section, the claimant may file 

a claim on or before the statutory 

deadline accompanied by a declaration 

under penalty of perjury stating that the 

statute of limitations will expire during 

the stay and setting forth facts in 

support of that conclusion. If the Board 

determines that the statute of limitations 

likely will expire during the stay based 

on the facts set forth in the declaration, 

the Board shall hold the claim in 

abeyance and conduct a compliance 

review following the end of the stay. 

Dated: May 9, 2022. 

Shira Perlmutter, 

Register of Copyrights and Director of the 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

Approved by: 

Carla D. Hayden, 

Librarian of Congress. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10466 Filed 5–16–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES3