Chicago Building Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s copyright infringement action based on belief that plaintiff filed instant action beyond applicable 3-year statute of limitation period set forth in Copyright Act. While Dist. Ct. found that one of plaintiff’s employees was on “inquiry notice” of possible copyright violation when he saw what he thought was plaintiff’s blueprints in City office with defendant’s name on them, so as to trigger limitations period, under Petrella, 134 S.Ct. 1962, each infringing act starts new limitations period, such that instant claim was timely, where plaintiff alleged that certain “distributions” of blueprints took place within instant three-year period. Moreover, Ct. rejected defendant’s claim that “limited publication principle” took alleged timely distributions of blueprints outside of Act. However, Ct. observed that it was open question as to whether timely alleged acts concerning defendant’s tender of subject blueprints to City officials constituted violations of Copyright Act.