What is the limitations period for claims under the Copyright Act?
Copyright Act claims have a three year limitations period, beginning when an infringing act accrues. However, when a defendant has committed successive violations, the separate-accrual rule accompanying the Copyright Act states that each infringing act starts a new limitation period. Each infringement, however, is actionable only within three years of its occurrence. See Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1962 (2014).
"On Texas Law" Developments and Commentary on Texas Civil Litigation, Contracts, Trade Secrets, Tortious Interference, and Procedure
Showing posts with label Statutes of Limitations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Statutes of Limitations. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
Limitations periods for trademark infringement
I own a business in Texas, and two years ago I discovered that someone else was using my trademark. Is it too late for me to take legal action in Texas?
Probably not. The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§1125 et seq.) creates a civil claim for trademark infringement. Since the Lanham Act does not contain a specific statute of limitations period, the courts look to state law to determine the appropriate statute of limitations. Federal courts have typically dealt with this issue by applying the state’s limitations period for fraud claims to claims under the Lanham Act. Texas is no different. In Texas, the four year statute of limitations for fraud claims (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.004) is applied to claims under the Lanham Act. See Tinker, Inc. v. Poteet, 2017 WL 4351304 at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2017). This four year period begins when a plaintiff discovers the fraud or could have discovered the fraud by the exercise of reasonable diligence. See Tinker, Inc. v. Poteet, 2017 WL 4351304 at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2017) citing S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 35 (Tex. 1996). Since you discovered this infringement only two years ago, the statute of limitations for your claims under the Lanham Act may not yet have expired. You may also have claims under the common law. The statute of limitations will depend on the type of claim you have. For trademark-infringement claims, the statute of limitations is four years while the statute of limitations for unfair-competition claims based on trademark infringement is two years. See Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc., 2018 WL 1806500 at *7 (N.D. Tex. April 17,2018) citing Derrick Mfg. Corp. v. Sw. Wire Cloth, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 796, 804-06 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003-.004). Unlike claims under the Lanham Act, in which the statute of limitations period begins when a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the fraud, the statute of limitations period for common-law trademark claims does not accrue until the allegedly wrongful conduct ends. This is because Texas law treats common law trademark-infringement as a continuing tort. See Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc., 2018 WL 1806500 at *7 (N.D. Tex. April 17,2018) citing Horseshoe Bay Resort Sales Co. v. Lake Lyndon B. Johnson Imp. Corp., 53 S.W.3d 799, 812 (Tex. App. – Austin 2001, pet. denied). However, the affirmative defense of laches may still apply.
Probably not. The Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §§1125 et seq.) creates a civil claim for trademark infringement. Since the Lanham Act does not contain a specific statute of limitations period, the courts look to state law to determine the appropriate statute of limitations. Federal courts have typically dealt with this issue by applying the state’s limitations period for fraud claims to claims under the Lanham Act. Texas is no different. In Texas, the four year statute of limitations for fraud claims (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §16.004) is applied to claims under the Lanham Act. See Tinker, Inc. v. Poteet, 2017 WL 4351304 at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2017). This four year period begins when a plaintiff discovers the fraud or could have discovered the fraud by the exercise of reasonable diligence. See Tinker, Inc. v. Poteet, 2017 WL 4351304 at *6 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2017) citing S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 35 (Tex. 1996). Since you discovered this infringement only two years ago, the statute of limitations for your claims under the Lanham Act may not yet have expired. You may also have claims under the common law. The statute of limitations will depend on the type of claim you have. For trademark-infringement claims, the statute of limitations is four years while the statute of limitations for unfair-competition claims based on trademark infringement is two years. See Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc., 2018 WL 1806500 at *7 (N.D. Tex. April 17,2018) citing Derrick Mfg. Corp. v. Sw. Wire Cloth, Inc., 934 F. Supp. 796, 804-06 (S.D. Tex. 1996) (citing Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003-.004). Unlike claims under the Lanham Act, in which the statute of limitations period begins when a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the fraud, the statute of limitations period for common-law trademark claims does not accrue until the allegedly wrongful conduct ends. This is because Texas law treats common law trademark-infringement as a continuing tort. See Springboards to Education, Inc. v. Scholastic Book Fairs, Inc., 2018 WL 1806500 at *7 (N.D. Tex. April 17,2018) citing Horseshoe Bay Resort Sales Co. v. Lake Lyndon B. Johnson Imp. Corp., 53 S.W.3d 799, 812 (Tex. App. – Austin 2001, pet. denied). However, the affirmative defense of laches may still apply.
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Time Limitations for Filing Claims Against a Partner in a Texas General Partnership
If I have a claim against a Texas general partnership and one of its partners, is the time period in which I must file suit (i.e., the limitations period) the same for both?
Generally, no. Because a partnership is a separate entity from its partners and because there is a statutory prerequisite to proceeding against a partner (the judgment against the partnership must go unsatisfied for ninety days before a creditor may proceed against a partner), a plaintiff’s cause of action against a partner does not accrue until the expiration of the ninety-day statutory satisfaction period against the partnership. See Am. Star Energy & Minerals Corp. v. Stowers, 457 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tex. 2015).
Generally, no. Because a partnership is a separate entity from its partners and because there is a statutory prerequisite to proceeding against a partner (the judgment against the partnership must go unsatisfied for ninety days before a creditor may proceed against a partner), a plaintiff’s cause of action against a partner does not accrue until the expiration of the ninety-day statutory satisfaction period against the partnership. See Am. Star Energy & Minerals Corp. v. Stowers, 457 S.W.3d 427, 431 (Tex. 2015).
Thursday, May 28, 2015
Texas Statute of Limitations for Fraudulent Inducement of a Contract
Is there a time limit within which one must file a lawsuit if he enter into a contract based upon another person’s intentional misrepresentations?
Generally, under Texas law, a person who wants to get out of a contract because he entered into it based upon the intentional misrepresentations (fraud) of someone else must file suit within four years of when he discovered, or should have discovered, the fraud. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(4); see also Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, Ltd. Partnership, 58 Tex. Sup. J. 252 (Tex. 2015).
Generally, under Texas law, a person who wants to get out of a contract because he entered into it based upon the intentional misrepresentations (fraud) of someone else must file suit within four years of when he discovered, or should have discovered, the fraud. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(4); see also Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, Ltd. Partnership, 58 Tex. Sup. J. 252 (Tex. 2015).
Thursday, February 19, 2015
The Discovery Rule as an Exception to Statutes of Limitation
Can I pursue a lawsuit for a wrongful act even though the limitations period has expired?
Generally, No. In certain limited circumstances however, Texas courts apply the “discovery rule” as an exception to the statutory limitations period.
The discovery rule delays the accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the facts giving rise to his cause of action. See Baker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306, 311-312 (Tex. 2006). In order for the discovery rule to apply, the nature of the injury must be inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable. HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 886 (Tex. 1998). When applied, the discovery rule tolls the running of limitations until the plaintiff (1) discovers the wrongful act that causes an injury or (2) acquires knowledge of facts that would lead to the discovery of the wrongful act. S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tex. 1996). Similarly, a defendant cannot avoid liability for his actions by purposefully concealing the wrongdoing until the statute of limitations has run. Id. at 6.
A party trying to rely upon the discovery rule must both plead and prove that the rule applies. See Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex. 1988).
Generally, No. In certain limited circumstances however, Texas courts apply the “discovery rule” as an exception to the statutory limitations period.
The discovery rule delays the accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the facts giving rise to his cause of action. See Baker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306, 311-312 (Tex. 2006). In order for the discovery rule to apply, the nature of the injury must be inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable. HECI Exploration Co. v. Neel, 982 S.W.2d 881, 886 (Tex. 1998). When applied, the discovery rule tolls the running of limitations until the plaintiff (1) discovers the wrongful act that causes an injury or (2) acquires knowledge of facts that would lead to the discovery of the wrongful act. S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1, 4 (Tex. 1996). Similarly, a defendant cannot avoid liability for his actions by purposefully concealing the wrongdoing until the statute of limitations has run. Id. at 6.
A party trying to rely upon the discovery rule must both plead and prove that the rule applies. See Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515, 518 (Tex. 1988).
Texas Statute of Limitations for Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Under the Texas Insurance Code
Is there a time limit within which one must file claims under the Texas Insurance Code for unfair claims settlement practices?
Yes. Under the Texas Insurance Code, a person must bring an action within two years of (1) the date the unfair or deceptive act or practice occurred; or (2) the date the person discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered that the unfair or deceptive act or practice occurred. Tex. Ins. Code. § 541.162(a)(1-2). This two year limitations period may be extended for 180 days if the plaintiff proves that the failure to bring the action within the two year period was caused by the defendant’s attempt to induce the plaintiff to refrain or postpone bringing the action. Tex. Ins. Code. § 541.162(b).
A cause of action under the Insurance Code for unfair claims based on denial of insurance coverage accrues on the date that the insurer denies coverage. See Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Coats, 885 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex. 1994).
Yes. Under the Texas Insurance Code, a person must bring an action within two years of (1) the date the unfair or deceptive act or practice occurred; or (2) the date the person discovered or, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered that the unfair or deceptive act or practice occurred. Tex. Ins. Code. § 541.162(a)(1-2). This two year limitations period may be extended for 180 days if the plaintiff proves that the failure to bring the action within the two year period was caused by the defendant’s attempt to induce the plaintiff to refrain or postpone bringing the action. Tex. Ins. Code. § 541.162(b).
A cause of action under the Insurance Code for unfair claims based on denial of insurance coverage accrues on the date that the insurer denies coverage. See Celtic Life Ins. Co. v. Coats, 885 S.W.2d 96, 100 (Tex. 1994).
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Statute of Limitations for an Insurer’s Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
If my insurance company cancelled my insurance policy without a reasonable basis or denied payment of a claim when it was required to pay, is there a limited time within which I have to file a lawsuit against the insurance company?
Yes. Claims against an insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing must be brought not later than two years from the date the claim accrued. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a); Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex. 1990). The “accrual date” (the date when the two year limitations period begins to run) is the day the insurer wrongfully denied coverage. See Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 828. The fact that damage may continue to occur for a period after the denial date does not prevent the statute of limitations from starting to run. Id. However, if the insurance company “strings the insured along” without denying or paying the claim, then the accrual date may be tolled. See, e.g., Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 829 n.2.
Yes. Claims against an insurer for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing must be brought not later than two years from the date the claim accrued. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.003(a); Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex. 1990). The “accrual date” (the date when the two year limitations period begins to run) is the day the insurer wrongfully denied coverage. See Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 828. The fact that damage may continue to occur for a period after the denial date does not prevent the statute of limitations from starting to run. Id. However, if the insurance company “strings the insured along” without denying or paying the claim, then the accrual date may be tolled. See, e.g., Murray, 800 S.W.2d at 829 n.2.
Monday, July 7, 2014
Statute of Limitations for Quantum Meruit Claims
Is there a limited time within which a plaintiff must file a quantum meruit claim?
Yes. As a general matter of Texas law, the statute of limitations on a claim for quantum meruit is four years. See Quigley v. Bennett, 256 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2008, no pet.); see also Pepi Corp v. Galliford, 254 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.– Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied)(A four-year limitations period applies to a quantum meruit claim.).
Yes. As a general matter of Texas law, the statute of limitations on a claim for quantum meruit is four years. See Quigley v. Bennett, 256 S.W.3d 356, 361 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2008, no pet.); see also Pepi Corp v. Galliford, 254 S.W.3d 457, 461 (Tex. App.– Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied)(A four-year limitations period applies to a quantum meruit claim.).
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Statute of Limitations for Tortious Interference with Existing Contract
If someone tortiously interferes with a contract that I am a party to, is there a limited time within which I must file a lawsuit?
Yes. As a general principle of Texas law, tortious interference with an existing contract has a two-year limitations period. See First Nat'l Bank of Eagle Pass v. Levine, 721 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex. 1986); see also Khan v. GBAK Props., Inc., 371 S.W.3d 347, 356 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).
Yes. As a general principle of Texas law, tortious interference with an existing contract has a two-year limitations period. See First Nat'l Bank of Eagle Pass v. Levine, 721 S.W.2d 287, 289 (Tex. 1986); see also Khan v. GBAK Props., Inc., 371 S.W.3d 347, 356 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.).
Statute of Limitations for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
If someone misappropriates my trade secrets, is there a limited time within which I must file a lawsuit?
Yes. “A person must bring suit for misappropriation of trade secrets not later than three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.010(a) (O’Connor’s CPRC Plus 2012-13); see also Pressure Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Southwest Research Inst., 350 S.W.3d 212, 216 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2011, pet. denied).
Yes. “A person must bring suit for misappropriation of trade secrets not later than three years after the misappropriation is discovered or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered.” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.010(a) (O’Connor’s CPRC Plus 2012-13); see also Pressure Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Southwest Research Inst., 350 S.W.3d 212, 216 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2011, pet. denied).
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Texas Statute of Limitations for Breach of Contract Claims
If someone breaches his or her contract, is there a limited time within which the non-breaching party must file a lawsuit?
Yes. As a general principle of Texas law, the statute of limitations on a claim for debt based on breach of contract is four years from the time the cause of action accrues.[1]
1. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a) (O’Connor’s CPRC Plus 2012-13); see also Williams v. Unifund CCR Partners, 264 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
Yes. As a general principle of Texas law, the statute of limitations on a claim for debt based on breach of contract is four years from the time the cause of action accrues.[1]
1. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a) (O’Connor’s CPRC Plus 2012-13); see also Williams v. Unifund CCR Partners, 264 S.W.3d 231, 234 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no pet.).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)