The May 9 verdict in the case of Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy by the US Supreme Court, although clear and specific, leaves a prominent question unanswered, one that could possibly be addressed in a future case, potentially during the next term.
With a decision of 6-3 led by Justice Elena Kagan, the court determined that there is no time limit enforced by the Copyright Act on a plaintiff’s financial recovery. This ruling has resolved a division among the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits over whether a plaintiff who files a copyright claim that is older than three years but timely under the discovery rule is nevertheless barred from obtaining damages for infringement that occurred over three years prior to the lawsuit. Notably, the court deliberately did not address whether the discovery rule pertains to copyright claims at all.
Even so, during oral argument, multiple justices questioned whether the court should decide in potentially another case, whether a discovery rule applies to the Copyright Act. Other justices posed questions implying that given the limited question presented and the history of the litigation, it should not do so here.
The court began its analysis of whether there is a separate damages bar applicable to cases made timely by the discovery rule by examining the language of the Copyright Act. The court found that the act contains no express time limit for monetary remedies separate from the limitations period for filing claims. Therefore, the court ruled that there is no separate time limit on damages for a copyright claim that is otherwise timely filed.
The case, Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, has brought along more questions, despite addressing some issues. There is currently a petition for certiorari awaiting the court’s attention in Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Martinelli. Future rulings may provide further insight and clarification into these matters. It remains, however, to be seen what the implications of these unresolved questions might be.