Consumer Health Information Corp. v. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing as untimely plaintiff’s action alleging copyright infringement by arguing that contract between parties, which assigned copyright in patient-education materials that marketed defendant’s diabetes drug Byetta, was induced by fraud or economic duress. Applicable limitations period was four years under California law, and record showed that plaintiff assigned copyright to defendant in 2006 and did not file instant action until 2013. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that any statute of limitations period did not apply since it was attempting to use contract defense in instant action and further found that plaintiff’s attempt at seeking rescission to regain copyright ownership was offensive use of rescission that could be subject to instant limitations period. Also, claims under Copyright Act are subject to three-year limitations period, and thus plaintiff’s action was untimely under said Act, where instant ownership claim accrued back in 2006, when contract was executed.