Michael Yamashita, et al. v. Scholastic Inc.

Nearly thirty years ago in Feist, this Court set forth two elements required to state a claim for copyright infringement: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.”1 The Second Circuit acknowledges a split from the Third Circuit’s holding in In re McGraw-Hill, which ruled that, under Feist, a plaintiff need not plead “unauthorized” copying to state a prima facie case,2 citing the Seventh Circuit’s concordant finding in Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc.3 The Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of the Petitioner’s complaint, which was nearly identical to those analyzed in In re McGraw. The Question Presented is: Did the Second Circuit err in holding that a complaint for copyright infringement must be dismissed unless it alleges particular facts showing “1) which specific original works are the subject of the copyright claim, 2) that plaintiff owns the copyrights in those works, 3) that the copyrights have been registered in accordance with the statute, and 4) [as now required by the Second Circuit but not by the Third and Seventh Circuits] by what acts during what time the defendant infringed the copyright”?4 1 Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361, 111 S.Ct. 1282, 1296, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). 2 In re McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings LLC, 909 F.3d 48, 66 (3d Cir. 2018). 3 F.3d 755, 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (“a plaintiff is not required to prove that the defendant’s copying was unauthorized in order to state a prima facie case of copyright infringement.”) (emphasis in original). 4 Yamashita v. Scholastic Inc., 936 F.3d 98, 104 (2d Cir. 2019) (emphasis added).