Latin American Music Co., Inc. v. Media Power Group, Inc.
105 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1465, 84 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 943, 705 F.3d 34 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Collateral estoppel bars a party from relitigating an issue, such as copyright ownership, by presenting additional evidence that was available but not timely submitted in the prior action. Furthermore, a certificate of recordation for a copyright assignment is insufficient to satisfy the statutory prerequisite of copyright registration needed to file an infringement suit.
Facts:
- Media Power Group, Inc. (MPG) owns and operates four radio stations in Puerto Rico, branded as 'Radio Isla'.
- MPG broadcast segments of numerous songs on its stations without possessing a license from the entities claiming copyright ownership.
- Latin American Music Company (LAMCO) alleged that composers or their heirs had assigned copyrights for twenty-one of these songs to LAMCO.
- LAMCO notified MPG of the alleged infringement and engaged in licensing negotiations, which were ultimately unsuccessful.
- Prior to this lawsuit, LAMCO had been involved in separate litigation, 'Brown v. Latin Am. Music Co.', concerning four of the same songs.
- In the 'Brown' case, LAMCO's claims were dismissed because it failed to establish a prima facie case of ownership.
- During the 'Brown' litigation, LAMCO possessed evidence of an ownership assignment but failed to submit it to the court in a timely manner.
Procedural Posture:
- LAMCO and ACEMLA sued MPG and its president in the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico for copyright infringement.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment as to twelve of the twenty-one songs at issue.
- The infringement claims for the remaining nine songs proceeded to a jury trial.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding that LAMCO had failed to prove ownership of the nine songs.
- LAMCO filed a post-verdict motion for a new trial, which the district court denied.
- LAMCO, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling and the final judgment entered after the jury verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does collateral estoppel prevent a party from relitigating a copyright ownership issue by presenting evidence that was available but not timely submitted in a prior action?
Opinions:
Majority - Howard, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A party cannot circumvent the preclusive effect of collateral estoppel merely by presenting additional evidence that was available to it at the time of the first action. The court applied the four-part test for collateral estoppel: (1) the issue of ownership in this case is the same as in the prior 'Brown' case; (2) the issue was actually litigated in 'Brown'; (3) the issue was determined by a valid and final judgment; and (4) the determination was essential to the judgment in 'Brown'. Because all four elements were met, LAMCO was precluded from relitigating the ownership of the four songs. The court rejected LAMCO's argument that its submission of new evidence changed the analysis, noting the evidence was not newly discovered and was available during the first action, making LAMCO's failure to timely submit it a procedural fault, not a basis to avoid preclusion.
Analysis:
This decision strongly affirms the principle of finality in litigation by strictly applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel. It clarifies that a party's procedural errors or strategic missteps in a prior case, such as failing to timely submit available evidence, do not create an exception to issue preclusion. The ruling serves as a stark warning to litigants about the importance of diligence, as it prevents them from getting a 'second bite at the apple.' Additionally, the court’s distinction between a certificate of recordation and a certificate of registration provides critical guidance for copyright litigants, reinforcing that only proof of actual registration satisfies the statutory precondition to bringing an infringement suit.
