## Facts

- Frank Petrella collaborated with boxer Jake LaMotta on works about LaMotta’s life, including a book and two screenplays that allegedly served as the basis for the film *Raging Bull* (1980).
- In 1976, LaMotta and Frank Petrella assigned rights, including renewal rights, to Chartoff-Winkler Productions; those rights were later transferred to United Artists and ultimately acquired by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. (MGM).
- Frank Petrella died in 1981 during the initial copyright term; under the pre-1978 renewal system, renewal rights passed to his heirs, and Paula Petrella claimed succession to his interest.
- In 1991, Paula Petrella renewed the copyright for the 1963 screenplay.
- In 1998, Petrella’s counsel notified MGM that exploitation of derivative works, including the film, infringed her renewed screenplay copyright.
- Petrella filed suit on January 6, 2009, seeking damages and injunctive relief limited to acts of infringement within the three years preceding suit, based on MGM’s continuing distribution and exploitation of the film.

## Issues

1. Whether laches may bar a copyright infringement action, even when the plaintiff seeks relief only for infringements occurring within the three-year limitations period in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).
2. Whether Petrella’s delay in filing suit was unreasonable under the circumstances.
3. Whether MGM suffered prejudice sufficient to support laches, including evidentiary prejudice and reliance-based economic prejudice.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for MGM.
- The court held that laches barred Petrella’s copyright claims notwithstanding that she sought relief only for infringements occurring within § 507(b)’s three-year window.
- The court found Petrella’s delay unreasonable, emphasizing the passage of years after the 1991 renewal and the 1998 assertion of rights.
- The court found prejudice to MGM, citing (i) evidentiary harm from lost records and deceased witnesses and (ii) reliance-based economic harm from MGM’s long-term investment and continued exploitation of the film.
- The court concluded that, given the overall inequity from delay plus prejudice, laches could bar the action as a whole despite the separate-accrual concept for ongoing infringement.

## Legal Principles

- In the Ninth Circuit’s then-controlling approach, laches could apply in copyright cases when a plaintiff’s unreasonable delay causes prejudice to the defendant, even if the suit is filed within the limitations period for recent infringing acts.
- Unreasonable delay may be shown by extended inaction after the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged infringement and after asserting rights without timely litigation.
- Prejudice supporting laches may include evidentiary prejudice (lost evidence, unavailable witnesses) and reliance-based economic prejudice (defendant structuring business and investments around assumed rights).
- Where both legal and equitable remedies are sought, laches may be applied broadly, including to bar claims in their entirety, if equity supports doing so.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld dismissal of Petrella’s copyright action on laches grounds, reasoning that her long delay after renewal and notice, combined with evidentiary and reliance-based prejudice to MGM, made the suit inequitable even though she limited requested relief to infringements within the three-year period set by § 507(b).


Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 695 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2012)