By: Abigail Roos*
Abstract
American society highly values protecting intellectual property from infringement. The Copyright Act of 1976 (the “Copyright Act”) protects a wide range of expressive and creative works. The Copyright Act grants owners of qualifying works a bundle of rights and provides for damages when those rights are infringed. However, Congress implemented a three-year statute of limitations to restrict an owner’s ability to bring an infringement lawsuit. But Congress failed to specify when the statute of limitations begins, which is known as the “accrual” date. As a result, lower federal courts created two accrual rules-the injury rule and the discovery rule.
The two conflicting accrual rules generate widespread confusion and uncertainty for copyright owners and courts. Because the lower courts employ different rules, copyright infringement case outcomes lack uniformity. As a result, many copyright owners engage in forum shopping to benefit their cases. Despite renouncing forum shopping, the Supreme Court denied previous opportunities to choose a rule.
In November 2023, Hearst Newspapers petitioned the Supreme Court to hear their case, Hearst Newspapers v. Martinelli, but their petition was denied. This Comment argues the Supreme Court should have granted Hearst Newspapers’ petition. By granting the petition and choosing an accrual rule, the Supreme Court would have created a uniform accrual period across the country and prevented plaintiffs from forum shopping. However, unlike the position of Hearst in Hearst Newspapers, this Comment recommends the Supreme Court choose the discovery rule because this rule provides courts with an objective standard and promotes the overarching goal of the Copyright Act, which is to promote the timely prosecution of claims while not unnecessarily punishing diligent copyright owners.
* J.D. Candidate, The Pennsylvania State University School of Law, 2025.