IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT NEWS—Copyright Claims Board: So far so good, but “room for improvement”, (Feb 17, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

A Copyright Office study deems the four-year-old tribunal a success, but offers some recommendations to Congress.

A pioneering copyright small claims tribunal “has served effectively as a pioneering forum for copyright disputes of relatively low economic value and delivered results by resolving disputes, facilitating settlements, and assisting members of the public,” according to a newly released report from the Copyright Office. But the 83-page report also points out that there is significant room for improvement in certain areas of the tribunal’s performance—some of which would require intervention by Congress in order to fix.

The report is a study of the Copyright Claims Board, a small claims tribunal located in the Copyright Office that was established by Congress in the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020, otherwise known as the CASE Act. The tribunal, which opened its doors to litigants in 2022, is empowered by its implementing legislation to hear copyright-related claims seeking no more than $30,000 in damages. Participation in a proceeding before the claims board, or CCB, is voluntary for both the claimant (the party who brings the claim) and the respondent (the party against whom a claim is brought). Either party retains the right, should they prefer, to have the claim heard in federal court.

The congressionally-mandated report offers a largely upbeat assessment of the tribunal’s record since its launch—albeit with some caveats. Perhaps most importantly, the report noted, there has been a significant demand for the CCB’s services since its launch, with a steady rate of roughly 400-500 claims filed each year. This comes a welcome relief to those—including many of the CCB’s backers—who were concerned that claims would be limited or that respondents would opt out at a high rate in favor of federal court proceedings. “The Office is pleased to report that this concern has not materialized,” the report notes.

The CCB has also produced “successful outcomes for a number of parties,” the report asserts. As of the end of 2025, the report noted, the CCB had issued 41 final determinations that have “received praise for their quality.” The CCB has also been successful at facilitating settlements, the report indicates. During the time period covered by the study, the report notes, the CCB had held 27 settlement conferences of which nearly two-thirds resulted in settlement agreements. In the same time period, the report notes, 136 proceedings were resolved due to a known party settlement, and over 100 additional proceedings were voluntarily dismissed under conditions unknown but that may have been prompted by settlements as well.

The report also makes clear that there is room for improvement in several key areas. Most importantly, the report notes, the average length of time to reach a determination was 518 days, or approximately one year and five months. One of the biggest obstacles to improving CCB efficiency, the report notes, is the amount of time that staff have to spend vetting claims for compliance with tribunal rules. “Streamlining the compliance review process to minimize the time devoted to disposing of claims that fall into this category should be a priority,” the report notes. To that end, the report recommends Congress should amend the CASE Act to give the CCB discretion to limit the number of opportunities that claimants can amend defective pleadings. The CCB has also recently modified its online claim form to better guide claimants in providing allegations specifying elements of their claims and is looking into other changes that could “improv[e] the process for claimants who have potentially valid claims but fail to plead them sufficiently in the first instance,” the report notes.

The often-burdensome requirements for serving a claim, the report notes, also poses a challenge to tribunal efficiency. In enacting the CASE act, the report notes, Congress incorporated state-law methods of service. But that has led to “unforeseen consequences for both claimants and respondents,” the report states. While the incorporation of these methods has expanded the options available to claimants, the report noted, the CCB lacks the resources to prepare and maintain service guides for all fifty states. Additionally, the report notes, some states allow alternative methods, but only after some form of court action, such as court approval—and “because the CCB is not a court, it cannot provide the requisite court action.” Accordingly, the report observes, these alternative service methods are not available to claimants as a practical matter, which can result in confusion and frustration. The report therefore recommends that Congress implement “a standard, streamlined, low-barrier service method that still protects respondents’ due process rights.”

Other recommendations made by the Copyright Office in the report include:

• Modifying the CASE Act to allow all proceedings to be handled initially by a single claims officer, rather than a panel of three.

• Streamlining further the process for claims of $5,000 or less in damages (so-called “smaller claims,” in the CCB’s vernacular).

• Improving the existing statutory mechanisms to ease the enforcement process for prevailing parties, for whom federal court is now “the only recourse when a party fails to comply with a determination.”

• Modifying the CASE Act to allow responding parties to waive the full 60-day opt-out period if they wish to participate in the CCB.

Further information on the report, including public comments and other related resources, can be found at the Copyright Office’s study website here.

News: Copyright