Opinion ID: 202883
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the infringement counterclaim

Text: The dismissal of a claim or counterclaim for failure to establish the elements of the claim receives plenary review, applying the standards applicable to review of questions of law, with factual inferences in favor of the claimant. See Ramirez v. Arlequín, 447 F.3d 19, 20 (1st Cir. 2006)(the district court's dismissal is reviewed de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences in the claimant's favor); Ramos-Pinero v. Puerto Rico, 453 F.3d 48, 51 (1st Cir.2006) (dismissal for failure to state a claim requires accepting the plaintiff's well-pleaded facts as true and indulging all reasonable inferences therefrom). When a claim is challenged with reference to matters outside the pleadings, including depositions, admissions, and affidavits, Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) provides that it is considered in accordance with the criteria of summary judgment. See Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 1990) (the purpose of summary judgment is to pierce the pleadings and to assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial) (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 56 advisory committee note). The infringement counterclaim is based on LAMCO's registration in February 2000 of the copyright for a work entitled Oubao Moin y 17 Obras Mas de Juan A. Corretjer, which included the eleven poems at issue. The registration application states the date of first publication as February 19, 1979. The district court perceived that the threshold question was whether LAMCO held a valid copyright to these poems, and observed that the burden of establishing a valid copyright resides with the claimant, citing Grubb v. KMS Patriots, L.P., 88 F.3d 1, 3, 5 (1st Cir.1996) (To prevail on a claim of copyright infringement, a plaintiff must show two elements: (1) ownership of a valid copyright and (2) copying of the protected work by the alleged infringer.). See also T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d 97, 108 (1st Cir.2006) (the burden is on the claimant to prove a valid copyright and its infringement); Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.2005). Here it is not disputed that Mr. Brown used the Corretjer poems, and although it is not an issue, Brown states that the poet welcomed and encouraged this usage. See Grubb, 88 F.3d at 3 (the claimant bears the burden of proof as to both elements of a copyright claim). Mr. Brown argued in the district court that LAMCO did not have a valid copyright because ten of the poems had been published and placed in the public domain, whether viewed under the notice requirements of the 1909 Copyright Act or the 1976 Copyright Act. The district court agreed that the burden was on LAMCO, as the claimant, to establish this threshold element. The Act of 1909 provided: Any person entitled thereto by this title may secure copyright for his work by publication thereof with the notice of copyright required by this title; and such notice will be affixed to each copy thereof published or offered for sale in the United States by authority of the copyright proprietor, except in the case of books seeking ad interim protection under section 22 of this title. 1909 Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added.) As explained in Twin Books Corp. v. Walt Disney Co., 83 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir.1996): The general rule under the 1909 Act is that a work must bear a valid copyright notice upon publication in order to secure copyright protection in the United States. Nimmer on Copyright § 7.02(C)(1). Under that rule, a publication of a work in the United States without the statutory notice of copyright fell into the public domain, precluding forever any subsequent copyright protection of the published work. Id. at 1165-66. Under the 1909 Act the principle evolved that a general publication without the statutory notice could bar access to federal copyright, but a limited publication would not. See Burke v. Nat'l Broad. Co., Inc., 598 F.2d 688, 691 (1st Cir.1979). This principle carried forward to the Act of 1976 (effective January 1, 1978), which also required including a copyright notice in the first publication. See 17 U.S.C. § 401(b). [2] It was thus necessary for LAMCO to show, at least prima facie in light of Brown's documentary evidence, that the poems at issue were not published before the February 19, 1979 publication recited in the registration certificate obtained by LAMCO in 2000. All that LAMCO offered the district court was a denial of Brown's assertion, plus the admission that Yerba Bruja with six poems was published in 1957. The district court referred to the absence of support, in considering the evidentiary weight appropriate to LAMCO's copyright certificate. The 1976 Act provides: In any judicial proceedings the certificate of registration made before or within five years after first publication of the work shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate. The evidentiary weight to be accorded the certificate of a registration made thereafter shall be within the discretion of the court. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Thus a registration within five years of first publication is accompanied by a presumption of validity of the copyright, whereas a registration obtained after five years benefits from no presumption, and the weight given to such a registration is within the discretion of the court. 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). See 3 Nimmer on Copyright, § 12.11, at 12-195 (2006) (The significant difference between these two provisions [of the 1909 and 1976 Acts] is that the prima facie effect of registration was achieved under the 1909 Act whenever registration occurred whereas, under the current Act, it is limited to those registrations that occur before, or within five years after, first publication of the work.) The district court explained that Congress included this five-year provision in the Act of 1976 on the ground that the longer the lapse of time between publication and registration, the less likely to be reliable are the facts stated in the certificate. Brown, slip op. at 7-8 (citing 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 12-11 and Cabrera v. Teatro del Sesenta, Inc., 914 F.Supp. 743 (D.P.R.1995)). Exercising the discretion assigned by § 410(a), the district court observed that LAMCO's copyright did not benefit from prima facie validity, and concluded that the LAMCO registration would receive little or no weight. The court referred to the passage of twenty years between the date of first publication stated on the registration certificate and the date of registration, citing Sem-Torq, Inc. v. K Mart Corp., 936 F.2d 851, 854 (6th Cir. 1991) (upon a gap of six years after first publication the district court was not bound to accept the validity of the copyright). See also Latin Am. Music Co. v. Archdiocese of San Juan of the Roman and Apostolic Church, 194 F.Supp.2d 30, 39 (D.P.R.2001) (when more than five years have elapsed between first publication and registration, the court is not required to accept the prima facie validity of the copyright); Tuff `N' Rumble Mgmt., Inc. v. Profile Records, Inc., 1997 WL 158364, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1398 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (registration of a work more than five years after first publication does not constitute prima facie evidence that the copyright is valid, and thus the claimant has the burden of proving the validity of its copyright). The district court found specific reason here to question the facts contained in the certificate, as it states that the first publication of the copyrighted work was February 18, 1979, but Defendants, in their opposition to Plaintiff's statement of uncontested facts, conceded that five of the poems in question  `Andando de Noche Sola,' `En la Vida Todo es Ir,' `Inriri Cahuvial,' `El Hijo,' and `Ayubiri'  were first published in 1957. Brown, slip op. at 8. The court mentioned LAMCO's admission that the facts stated in the registration certificate are not wholly accurate, and also that LAMCO proffered no evidence to counter Brown's submissions concerning the publication of the poems. In its briefs on this appeal LAMCO does not respond to the district court's concerns as reflected in the opinion. Instead, LAMCO argues that Brown did not challenge the assignment to LAMCO from Corretjer's heirs, a matter not in dispute. LAMCO also argues that the district court erred in considering Brown's evidence of publication when LAMCO had controverted it by general denial. However, the district court correctly held that the burden of proof of the existence of a valid copyright is with the infringement claimant, and in recognizing that LAMCO presented or proffered no facts or evidence concerning Brown's presentation of books and pamphlets containing the poems without a copyright notice. In opposing a motion for dismissal for failure to state a claim, as in opposing a motion for summary judgment, general denials are insufficient, and the court is not required to credit bald assertions, unsupportable conclusions, periphrastic circumlocutions, and the like. Aulson v. Blanchard, 83 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1996). See also, e.g., Centro Medico del Turabo, Inc. v. Feliciano de Melecio, 406 F.3d 1, 5-6 (1st Cir.2005) (the pleadings must support each material element needed to sustain recovery). LAMCO did not present any substantive support for its claim of copyright, as against the twenty-year gap and the uncontroverted documentary evidence of prior publication without the required statutory notice. LAMCO's final argument on appeal is simply that the district court erred in ruling on the counterclaim instead of having a trial. Again, there is no suggestion of evidence that might lead to a judgment in LAMCO's favor. We have been directed to no reversible error in the judgment that LAMCO had not established the requisite elements for proceeding with a suit for copyright infringement. In view of this affirmance we do not reach Brown's additional and alternate defenses, inter alia, that Brown's phonorecords commenced a three-year statute of limitations as to any claim on behalf of the author of the poems. See 17 U.S.C. § 507(b) (No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.); see generally Otero v. P.R. Indus. Comm'n, 441 F.3d 18, 20 (1st Cir.2006) (the appellate court may affirm the judgment on any basis supported by the record).