Opinion ID: 732315
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Inquiry into The Law

Text: 25 Rule 11(b)(2) requires that all claims, defenses, and other legal contentions [be] warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. Appellant does not contend that any of the latter justifications apply, and so we must ascertain whether his legal arguments are warranted by existing law. For reasons that follow, we conclude that they are not, and that sanctions therefore were within the sound discretion of the district court. 26 Appellant's legal research was faulty primarily in two particular areas: copyright law (pertaining to what the parties call the registration issue) and the law of personal property (the ownership issue). Turning to the registration issue, appellant states that this was the first copyright case which he had handled, and points out that a practitioner has to begin somewhere. While we are sympathetic to this argument, its thrust is more toward the nature of the sanctions to be imposed rather than to the initial decision whether sanctions should be imposed. Regrettably, the reality of appellant's weak grasp of copyright law is that it caused him to pursue a course of conduct which was not warranted by existing law and compelled the defendant to expend time and money in needless litigation. 27 Appellant's primary contention is that by registering a copyright in his book, Dr. Zuk had somehow also protected the films reproduced in them. The logical progression is that because the book contained transcripts of the films, the words spoken in the films were protected, and thus so were the films. Although perhaps logical, this argument runs contrary to copyright law. The copyright in [a derivative] work ... does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. 17 U.S.C. § 103(b). 28 In all fairness to appellant, we should note that the cases and commentary interpreting this provision focus on derivative works which incorporate the preexisting work of a different author. Had appellant presented his argument as a matter of first impression, and argued for a new interpretation of the statute where the same individual authored both works, he might have stood upon a more solid footing. Instead, appellant's brief evidences what strikes us as a cursory reading of the copyright laws, and a strained analysis of what appears to be an inapposite case (Gamma Audio & Video, Inc. v. Ean-Chea, 11 F.3d 1106, 29 USPQ2d 1257 (1st Cir.1993)). 29 We now focus on the ownership issue. The parties agree that if EPPI owns the copies of the film in its possession, then 17 U.S.C. § 109 5 permits EPPI to rent out the films. Appellant maintains, however, that EPPI does not own the copies, because they were made specifically for Dr. Zuk at his behest, and as a perquisite of his faculty position at EPPI. This question raises reasonable issues as to the rights of an employer in the work product of an employee, and its resolution is not so clear as to itself warrant the sanctioning of appellant for advancing this claim. 30 EPPI contends, however, that it is too late in the day to raise this argument. The Pennsylvania statute of limitations on replevin is two years. Dr. Zuk demanded the return of the copies in 1980, and EPPI refused to comply, based upon a claim of ownership. EPPI's possession thereafter was open, notorious, and under claim of right, and yet Dr. Zuk did not institute an action to replevy. It would therefore appear that EPPI now holds superior title, see, e.g., Priester v. Milleman, 161 Pa.Super. 507, 55 A.2d 540 (1947), and that an inquiry into Pennsylvania personal property law would have revealed that appellant's claim was far too stale. However, EPPI raises its argument too late in this proceeding. It did not rely upon, or even mention, the adverse possession theory before the district court. Because the court could not have relied upon this aspect of the ownership issue in imposing sanctions, it is inappropriate for us to consider it at this time.