No. 12-1315 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- PAULA PETRELLA, Petitioner, v. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER, INC., et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- BRIEF FOR PETITIONER --------------------------------- --------------------------------- GLEN L. KULIK STEPHANOS BIBAS KULIK GOTTESMAN & Counsel of Record SIEGEL LLP JAMES A. FELDMAN 15303 Ventura Boulevard NANCY BREGSTEIN GORDON Suite 1400 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 LAW SCHOOL (310) 557-9200 SUPREME COURT CLINIC 3501 Sansom Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 746-2297 [email protected] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the nonstatutory defense of laches is available without restriction to bar all remedies for civil copyright claims filed within the three-year stat- ute of limitations prescribed by Congress, 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Petitioner is Paula Petrella. Petitioner was plaintiff-appellant below. Respondents are Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.; Metro- Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc.; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment, LLC; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Home Entertainment Distribution Corp.; United Artists Corp.; and 20th Century Fox Home Enter- tainment, LLC. All respondents were defendants- appellees below. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Question Presented ................................................ i Parties to the Proceeding ....................................... ii Table of Contents .................................................... iii Table of Authorities ................................................ v Opinions Below ....................................................... 1 Jurisdiction ............................................................. 1 Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved .... 2 Statement of the Case ............................................ 2 Summary of Argument ........................................... 14 Argument ................................................................ 18 I. Because Congress Has Prescribed the Time Allowed for Bringing Copyright In- fringement Suits, Courts May Not Impose Additional Timeliness Doctrines Such as Laches........................................................... 18 A. Under the Text of the Copyright Act’s Three-Year Statute of Limitations, Pe- titioner’s Suit Was Timely ..................... 18 B. The Separation of Powers Prevents Judges from Constricting Congress’s Express Three-Year Statute of Limita- tions........................................................ 24 C. The Statutory Context of the Copy- right Act Confirms that Laches May Not Bar Claims Brought Within the Statute of Limitations ........................... 30 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page D. The Legislative History Confirms That Laches Cannot Constrict the Copyright Act’s Express Statute of Limitations .... 33 II. Laches Cannot Bar Either Injunctive Re- lief or Damages for Copyright Infringe- ment .............................................................. 37 A. Laches Does Not Bar Injunctive Relief .... 38 B. Laches Does Not Bar Relief at Law ......... 47 III. Precluding the Defense of Laches Would Have Salutary Consequences ...................... 51 A. Laches Is Unnecessary to Guard Against Evidentiary Prejudice ........................... 52 B. Laches Risks Breeding Excessive, Costly Litigation and Copyright Trolls ............ 56 C. Equitable Estoppel Is Available to Pro- tect Against Financial Prejudice ........... 60 Conclusion ............................................................... 63 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) .......................... 31, 39 Abraham v. Ordway, 158 U.S. 416 (1895) ................. 50 Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) ....................................................................... 32 Amoco Prod. Co. v. S. Ute Indian Tribe, 526 U.S. 865 (1999) ........................................................ 32 Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946) .......... 54 Ashley v. Boyle’s Famous Corned Beef Co., 66 F.3d 164 (8th Cir. 1995) .................................... 28, 29 Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 342 (1875) .......... 32 Baisden v. I’m Ready Prods., Inc., 693 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) ......................................................... 44 Bay Area Laundry & Dry Cleaning Pension Trust Fund v. Ferbar Corp., 522 U.S. 192 (1997) ................................................................. 19, 20 Borer v. Chapman, 119 U.S. 587 (1887) ..................... 19 Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens Ltd. P’ship, 619 F.3d 301 (4th Cir. 2010) .................................................. 22 Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., 836 F.2d 599 (D.C. Cir. 1988) ........... 43 Clark v. Iowa City, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 583 (1874) ....................................................................... 19 Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989) ........................................................ 58 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Cont’l Paper Bag Co. v. E. Paper Bag Co., 210 U.S. 405 (1908) ........................................................ 41 Cnty. of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) ........................................................ 50 Crown Coat Front Co. v. United States, 386 U.S. 503 (1967) .................................................. 21, 22 Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U.S. 469 (1962) ........ 50 Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................................................. 61 De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U.S. 570 (1956) .............. 52 Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. (10 Otto) 578 (1879) ....................................................................... 60 Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905 (2d Cir. 1980) .............................................. 54, 55 eBay Inc., v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................... 16, 40, 41 Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555 (9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................. 44 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ............. passim Exploration Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 435 (1918) ....................................................................... 33 F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, Inc., 344 U.S. 228 (1952) ................................................. 48 Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998) ................................................. 49 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Ka- bushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) ............................ 58 Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ............ 58 Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123 (1932)........... 38 Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013) ...................... 21 Golan v. Holder, 132 S. Ct. 873 (2012) ....................... 59 Graham Cnty. Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409 (2005) ....................................................................... 21 Haas v. Leo Feist, Inc., 234 F. 105 (S.D.N.Y. 1916) .................................................................. 61, 62 Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 279 F.2d 100 (9th Cir. 1960) .......................................... 60 Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993) ..................... 56 Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392 (1946) .... passim Holt v. Menendez, 23 F. 869 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1885), aff ’d, 128 U.S. 514 (1888) ........................... 39 Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) ....................................................................... 32 Klehr v. A.O. Smith Corp., 521 U.S. 179 (1997) ..... 20, 22, 23 L.A. Westermann Co. v. Dispatch Printing Co., 249 U.S. 100 (1919) ................................................. 48 Lyons P’ship, L.P. v. Morris Costumes, Inc., 243 F.3d 789 (4th Cir. 2001) .............................. 29, 30, 31 Marvel Characters, Inc. v. Simon, 310 F.3d 280 (2d Cir. 2002) ........................................................... 60 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page Marx v. Gen. Revenue Corp., 133 S. Ct. 1166 (2013) ....................................................................... 32 Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (1954) ........................... 27 McLean v. Fleming, 96 U.S. 245 (1877) ............... 15, 39 McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013) ........... 56 Menendez v. Holt, 128 U.S. 514 (1888) .... 15, 38, 39, 44 Peter F. Gaito Architecture, LLC v. Simone Dev. Corp., 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010) ...................... 54, 55 Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993) ......................... 19 Roger Miller Music, Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publ’g, LLC, 477 F.3d 383 (6th Cir. 2007) .......................... 22 Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992) ............. 48 Rowe v. Hussman Corp., 381 F.3d 775 (8th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 28 Russell v. Todd, 309 U.S. 280 (1940) .................. passim