IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Ill.: Lawsuit over 1980s House music track gets downsized, (Mar 12, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The claims were barred, at least in part, by the statute of limitations.

The composer and producer of a 1980s dance music track waited too late to bring a lawsuit against the entities behind a stream of remixes that sampled that work because he was aware of, or could have discovered with reasonable diligence, the alleged acts of infringement before the statute of limitations expired, the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois has found. But the court, in partially dismissing the lawsuit in a pair of companion rulings, also found that one aspect of the complaint—at least on the basis of the allegations in the complaint and later assertions by the producer—could go forward for now (Mitchell v Cox, No. 1:24-cv-00496 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2026) (order granting in part and denying in part MTD); Mitchell v. Cox, No. 1:24-cv-00496 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2026) (order granting Perfecto Defendants’ MTD)).

The lawsuit revolves out of a song from the 1980s called “Love Will Find a Way.” Victor Parris Mitchell, known by his stage name Victor Romeo, wrote, composed, and produced the song in April 1988. It was released by Dance Mania Records, with an additional performance by vocalist Leatrice Brown, in November 1988. The song, whose audience was largely confined to followers of the House or Acid House genres, has been remixed and re-released several times in the decades since.

The 1980s track reached a larger audience, however, when renowned British DJ and music producer Carl Cox sampled it in his popular track “I Want You Forever.” Cox licensed the song to Perfecto Records, the record label owned by equally renowned DJ and producer Paul Oakenfold, which originally released a version of it in 1991. He also later licensed the song to a different record label, CR2 Records, in 2008. Perfecto and CR2 records, in turn, created and licensed multiple remixes and versions to Universal Music Group/Virgin Records, BMG Limited UK, Sony Music Entertainment/RCA Records, and numerous independent record labels internationally. Mechanical royalties from the remixes, meanwhile, have been allegedly collected throughout this time by Cox and co-collaborator Martin Lascell.

Mitchell brought this lawsuit in 2024 against Cox, Oakenfeld, Lascell, Perfecto, CR2 Records, and a wide range of other persons and entities allegedly involved in the recording and distribution of various versions of “I Want You Forever.” Several of the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, leading to these two opinions.

Statute of limitations—Cox. The court first found that the lawsuit against Cox—at least based on the allegations of the complaint on their face—was not barred in its entirety by the statute of limitations. To be sure, the court noted, Mitchell acknowledged that he first became aware of Cox’s remix of his song in 2011, well outside of the three-year statute of limitations. Indeed, Mitchell acknowledged, he reached out to Cox in that year to negotiate a sampling agreement for one of the versions of the song. However, Cox contended, he did not become aware until 2022—when he began to receive online royalty statements—that Cox had allegedly “commissioned, released, and licensed over 30 distinct remixes” of the song. Did that allegation save his complaint? The court found that it did.

Mitchell’s complaint survived dismissal, the court found, because Cox had not met his burden—at least at this early stage of the case—to show that Mitchell should have discovered the other remixes Cox made of his song. Cox argued that in the years after Mitchell entered into his sampling agreement with Cox over the one version of the song covered by the agreement, “a reasonable person would have looked into the issue when he was not receiving royalty payments or simply to make sure Cox was upholding the agreement.” But Cox did not cite to any authority for this assertion, the court found, and Cox was limited in his proof at this time only to the complaint and any other assertions by Mitchell. Without the factual evidence that might be obtained later in discovery, the court reasoned, Cox had “not met his burden of showing that a reasonable person in Mitchell’s shoes would have believed that, after the execution of the [l]icensing [a]greement and the subsequent correspondence related to it, Cox would have ceased further infringement.”

But while Mitchell’s complaint over Cox’s post-agreement infringement survived dismissal, the court found Mitchell could not move forward on claims of infringement taking place before 2011. Although Mitchell might well have reasonably believed that the 2011 agreement assured that there would be no further infringement in the future, the court noted that assumption did not apply for acts of infringement that had already taken place prior to the date of the agreement. Indeed, the court noted, based on Mitchell’s own allegations, a search of various digital service providers between 2021 and 2024 easily revealed those alleged acts of infringement. Given that, the court found, “a reasonable person would have conducted such a search between 2011 and 2024 and thus would have been on constructive notice of the pre-2011 infringement well before 2021.” This aspect of the claim against Cox would therefore fail.

Statute of limitations—Perfecto. And while the claim against Cox would at least go forward in part, the court found that was not true of the claim against Perfecto. Here, the court noted, the factual situation was much simpler. Indeed, the court noted, Mitchell acknowledged in a declaration submitted in opposition to the dismissal motion that when he learned of Cox’s use and distribution of one version of the remix in 2011, that was the very version distributed by Perfecto. Thus, the court noted, 2011 was the latest possible accrual date for any claim against Perfecto, and “those claims expired in 2014.” Moreover, because Perfecto ceased all of its distribution of the song in 2008, the court noted there was no continuing infringement that could save the complaint against that record label. This portion of the lawsuit, as a result, would fail.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-00496.

Judge: Valderrama, F.

Attorneys: Sean M. Mulroney (Sean Mulroney & Associates) for Victor Parris Mitchell. Cory D. Anderson (Rock Fusco & Connelly, LLC) for Carl Cox.

Cases: Copyright IllinoisNews TechnologyInternet GCNNews