IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Claims over sharing of financial publications time-barred; identity-based accrual argument rejected, (Jul 16, 2026)

By Mina O. Capouet, J.D., LL.M.

Complaining media company discovered the infringement more than three years before filing suit, although it did not yet know the infringer’s identity.

Claims for copyright infringement made by a subscription-based financial media company, DBW Partners, LLC (“DBW”), against BTG Pactual Asset Management US LLC (“BTG”) for the sharing and use of copyrighted material without authorization were barred by the statute of limitations, a district court in New York has decided. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of BTG, holding that DBW’s copyright infringement claims were barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations. The court concluded that the limitations period began when DBW discovered the alleged infringement—not when it identified BTG as the alleged infringer—and further held that equitable tolling did not apply. The court also dismissed DBW’s copyright management information claim under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act after finding it had been abandoned (DBW Partners LLC v. BTG Pactual Asset Management US L.L.C., No. 1:24-cv-09836-LGS (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 14, 2026)).

DBW, a subscription-based media company that issues publications to the financial industry, including issues such as mergers and acquisition, antitrust enforcement, and corporate investigations, allegedly discovered that multiple financial industry subscribers had previously shared or were sharing copyrighted publications with third parties without authorization in 2016 and 2017. On October 25, 2021, one of DBW’s subscribers informed the company that Market Securities, LLC (“Market Securities”), a non-party to the action, had posted “summaries of Cap Forum reports” in addition to two additional instances of suspected republications on October 26, 2021, and October 27, 2021. Based on the reports, on October 27, 2021, DBW Chief Revenue Officer told personnel that entire articles were being shared “without any doubts.” On the same day, DBW outside counsel sent Market Securities a cease-and-desist letter for copyright infringement of its Capitol Forum abstracts. Subsequently, through discovery in an action against Market Securities, DBW learned that Market Securities had obtained copies of its publications from BTG. DBW filed action against BTG on December 14, 2024, asserting two claims, first, for copyright infringement and, second, for the distribution of copyright material knowing that copyright management information was altered or removed.

Copyright infringement—statute of limitations. The copyright infringement claim was time barred, the court concluded. The court found that DBW had actual knowledge of the alleged copyright infringement by October 2021, considering a subscriber informed DBW that Market Securities was infringing its copyrights on October 25, 2021. Just two days later, DBW’s Chief Revenue Officer stated internally that a subscriber was sharing full articles with Market Securities. Additionally, that same day DBW sent Market Securities a letter accusing it of obtaining unauthorized copies of its copyrighted materials. Based on this evidence, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that DBW learned of the infringement any later than October 2021.

While DBW argued that a copyright claim does not accrue until it knows both about the infringement and the identity of the infringer, the court rejected this argument. Reasoning that Second Circuit precedent indicates the limitations period begins when the plaintiff discovers the infringement itself, not when it learns all facts necessary to file suit, including the infringer’s identity. The court relied on Levy v. BASF Metals Ltd., 917 F.3d 106, 108 (2d Cir. 2019) to reject DBW’s argument that a claim accrues only after the plaintiff learns the infringer’s identity. In Levy, the Second Circuit held that a claim under the Commodity Exchange Act accrued when the plaintiff became aware of her injury—a sudden, unexplained price drop indicating market manipulation—even though the plaintiff did not yet know who was responsible. The court noted that other Second Circuit decisions have applied the same principle to claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. Applying that rule to the Copyright Act, the court held that plaintiff’s knowledge of the copyright infringement in October 2021 triggered the three-year statute of limitations, regardless of whether DBW knew BTG’s identity at that time. Because the suit was filed more than three years later, the copyright claim was untimely.

Equitable tolling. The court rejected DBW’s argument that equitable tolling saved its otherwise untimely copyright claim. Under Second Circuit decisions, equitable tolling applies only when (1) extraordinary circumstances prevented timely filing, (2) the plaintiff diligently pursued its rights, and (3) those circumstances actually caused the missed original filing deadline.

While DBW argued that BTG fraudulently concealed its identity, the court found that no reasonable factfinder could conclude this prevented timely filing as DBW had already filed suit against BTG within the limitations period in the District of Columbia. Those claims were dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Additionally, after the D.C. court dismissed the case on August 10, 2024, DBW knew BTG’s identity and had ample time until October 27, 2024, to refile in the proper court. Because any alleged concealment did not cause DBW to miss the filing deadline, and it could have filed on time with reasonable diligence, the court held that the requirements for equitable tolling were not met.

Copyright management information claim. The court also granted summary judgment to BTG on DBW’s claim that BTG knowingly distributed copyrighted material with altered or removed copyright management information in violation of 17 U.S.C. §1201. Although BTG sought summary judgment on all claims, DBW’s opposition brief addressed only its copyright infringement claim and made no argument regarding the copyright management information claim.

Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court held that when a party fails to respond to a summary judgment motion on a particular claim, that claim may be deemed abandoned. Because the plaintiff did not argue in support of its copyright management information claim in its opposition, the court treated the claim as abandoned and granted summary judgment for BTG on that basis.

Conclusion. Because DBW had actual knowledge of the alleged infringement by October 2021, failed to establish equitable tolling, and abandoned its copyright management information claim, the court granted summary judgment for BTG on all claims.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-09836-LGS.

Judge: Schofield, L.

Attorneys: Neil Harris Koslowe (Potomac Law Group, PLLC) for DBW Partners LLC. Anna Naydonov (White & Case LLP) for BTG Pactual Asset Management US L.L.C.

Companies: DBW Partners LLC; BTG Pactual Asset Management US L.L.C.

Cases: Copyright NewYorkNews