2024 years 1 month 16 day, The United States Copyright Office "Federal register" A final rule has been published, About filing a copyright claim with the Commission (CCB) The institutional provisions for filing small infringement claims have been amended. In response to comments from the legal and copyright communities, The U. S. Copyright Office's final rule is intended to address the claimants' choices CCB Disputes over procedural forms, and CCB The discretion of officials in punishing violations of evidentiary requirements. According to the rules, The agency's final rules on the small claims process will be finalized 2 month 15 Officially come into force.

The United States Copyright Office 2022 years 5 May first published about CCB Final rules for existing and post-award proceedings. Although established CCB "Copyright Small Claims Enforcement Alternative Act" ( " "CASE bill" " ) Allowable maximum 1. 5 A claim amount of $10, 000, but 2022 years 5 Some aspects of the month rule are 5000 A simplified procedure is provided for small damages claims under USD. CCB Features of the small claims process include limited discovery (limited discovery) , Prohibit expert testimony and replace formal hearings with informal initial and merits meetings.

although 2022 years 5 The October rule was issued by the U. S. Copyright Office as a final rule, But the agency is still asking for further public comment on the latest draft rules. At the Copyright Alliance and the Intellectual Property Law Society of New York (NYIPLA) After each submitted his own opinion, The agency recently updated the final rule, Its focus is on "United States Code" The first 37 ranking 220 article, The first 222 Articles and ordinances 226 Wording in article.

The Copyright Alliance sought clarification on the wording of the evidentiary violation provision

The Copyright Coalition's recommendations focus on clarifying some of the regulatory language, These terms allow a claimant to change its form of action during the period between the filing of its claim and the delivery of the initial notice to the respondent. The Copyright Alliance, which represents artists in copyright matters, is concerned, The proposed regulatory language would allow claimants to change from standard claims to smaller amounts, But the reverse is not true. It also requested further clarity on the wording of the relief measures to be taken after a party violated the rules of evidence, Because the current wording appears to exclude remedies for evidentiary submissions not served or provided by other parties.

In both cases, The United States Copyright Office has accepted the alliance's recommendations, alignment 226 The bar has been slightly adjusted, That is, the procedure for claims for smaller amounts is regulated. Although the agency did clarify one point, That is, the claimant may change its form of action prior to the initial notice, But in view of "CCB Operation manual" The selection procedure is mentioned, The agency declined to extend the changes to other regulatory language. In clarifying that the presiding judge may apply the same remedy to cases where evidence has not been submitted as to cases where evidence has not been disclosed to another party, The agency noted, Appropriate remedies for either of these violations are not limited to drawing adverse inferences.

The U. S. Copyright Office declined to provide additional information before the case conference

In comments to the U. S. Copyright Office's final rule, NYIPLA Issues were raised in connection with the parallel operation of the standard claims procedure and the small claims procedure, This will increase CCB The cost and complexity of the program, The tribunal was originally established as a cost-effective alternative to the United States Federal District Courts. The bar Association also objects to the use of small claims where claimants are raised in excess 5000 Dollar counterclaims are accompanied by standard procedural regulatory language. It also recommended that the parties be allowed to submit written replies, As a form of rebuttal to the statement of position that the parties may submit prior to the conference on the merits.

On this point, The US Copyright Office did adopt it NYIPLA The suggestion of, namely CCB Meetings should be held with the parties, To determine whether there is excess against the claimant 5000 Dollar counterclaims are subject to separate proceedings, Or a consolidated procedure using standard or small claims procedures. merely, The agency refused NYIPLA Other amendments proposed. The agency concluded, Forcing a consolidation of cases in response to a larger counterclaim would undermine CCB The voluntary nature of the proceedings. same, The agency also reached another conclusion, namely NYIPLA The proposed additional information statement would increase the application burden for parties, And extend the trial time, This runs counter to the purpose behind the creation of the small claims program. (Be compiled from www. ipwatchdog. com)

TRANSLATORS: Wang Dan　proofread: Liu Peng



　　disclaimer: This network reprint or compile the original articles are from the network, Does not represent the views of this website or confirm the authenticity of its content. If the source is mislabeled or the copyright of the article is involved, Please contact us, This website will be corrected in due course, delete, thank you.