Copyright Preemption Analysis Checklist: A Practical Checklist

How to use this checklist

Use it twice if you can: once before the complaint or removal notice is filed, and again when the opposing brief arrives. Go count by count. A complaint with six counts can produce six different answers, and courts expect that analysis to be separate.

Phases 0 through 2 apply to every count. Phase 3 has a section for each common claim, so use only the ones you need. Phases 4 and 5 are about forum and consequences. Phase 6 is a final review for whichever side you are on. Keep a one-line conclusion for each count, such as "Count 3: within subject matter, no extra element, preempted unless the confidentiality allegations are developed."

For the reasoning behind the tasks, read Copyright Preemption Under Section 301: When Federal Law Wipes Out Your State Law Claim. For the order of battle, read Pleading Around or Moving to Dismiss on Copyright Preemption: A Practical Guide. For templates, go to the Copyright Preemption Toolkit: Extra Element Charts, Removal Papers, and Motion Outlines.

Phase 0: Collect the record

• Get the works themselves. Every script, deck, memo, drawing, recording, screenshot, and data file at issue. Section 301(a) of 17 U.S.C. § 301 only reaches works fixed in a tangible medium. Note: An email summarizing an oral pitch can change the analysis. Ask for sent mail, not just the client's memory.
• Get every agreement and its version history. Signed contracts, NDAs, licenses, click-through terms, website terms, purchase orders. Note: X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024) declined to take up breach theories based on terms X Corp. revised after filing suit, because X Corp. offered no argument for including them. Date each version.
• Identify the copyright owner and the registration status. 17 U.S.C. § 501(b); 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); 17 U.S.C. § 412. Note: Check for work for hire and written transfers. In Jackson v. Roberts (In re Jackson), 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020), the performer owned no copyright in his own recording.
• Write a plain-verb timeline of the defendant's conduct. Separate copying, adapting, distributing, displaying, and performing from everything else. 17 U.S.C. § 106.
• Identify the forum and governing circuit, and any state law choice. The Eleventh Circuit's rule on ideas differs from the rest (Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2004)), and Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012) needed a choice of law analysis to resolve an implied contract.
• Note the date each act occurred and the date of each repudiation. Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2005) turned on a letter from a decade earlier.

Red flag: Your client says "we own it" but has no registration and no signed writing. Plaintiffs in that position can lose the state claim to preemption and also lack a ready federal claim.

Phase 1: Prong one, subject matter

• Classify the work under section 102(a) or 103. Literary, musical, dramatic, pictorial, motion picture, sound recording, architectural, compilation, derivative. 17 U.S.C. § 102; 17 U.S.C. § 103. Note: The category need only fit in a broad sense. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004). Commercial websites qualify in the Ninth Circuit under Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 90 F.4th 962 (9th Cir. 2024), and software qualifies generally.
• Decide if the material was fixed. If not, Section 301(b)(1) preserves state law. Note: Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) calls unfixed ideas "purely airborne." A live event being simultaneously recorded counts as fixed under 17 U.S.C. § 101, as National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) explains.
• Do not stop because the material is unprotectable. Facts, ideas, and unoriginal data can still meet this prong. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, 723 F.2d 195 (2d Cir. 1983); ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996); Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012); Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015); Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc., 845 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2017). Note: ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-3113 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (summary order) rejected an argument that transcriptions lacked originality, stating this does not defeat preemption.
• In the Eleventh Circuit, separate ideas from expression. Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) treats ideas as outside the subject matter even when written down. Note: Outside that circuit this argument is usually lost. Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015) surveys the majority position.
• Test whether the thing claimed is really identity. Name, likeness, and persona are not works of authorship, per Toney v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 406 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2005) and Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001). Note: A recording or photo embodying that identity is a work. See Phase 3G.
• Test whether the thing claimed is really physical property. A chattel is outside copyright's interests. Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015); Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2003).
• Test whether the thing claimed is effort unrelated to authorship. Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc., 820 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1987) separated work creating a map from work obtaining a subdivision approval.
• Do not ask for partial preemption. National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) rejected separate treatment of uncopyrightable games and copyrightable broadcasts.

Red flag: A brief that says "ideas can't be copyrighted, so Section 301 does not apply." Outside the Eleventh Circuit, this misreads the test and costs credibility. Argue fixation or the second prong instead.

Phase 2: Prong two, equivalence

• State the act complained of and match it to a section 106 right. The right is equivalent if it may be abridged by an act that would, by itself, infringe. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004); Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).
• List every element of the state claim from state authority. Elements vary by state and over time. Use the current pattern instruction or leading state case.
• Test each element for change in nature, not just difference. Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001); OpenRisk, LLC v. MicroStrategy Services Corp., 876 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2017). Note: Awareness and intent do not count (Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992), Rosciszewski v. Arete Associates, Inc., 1 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 1993)). Enrichment does not count (Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004)). Commercial use does not count (Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006)). Effort and expense do not count (Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999)).
• Read the pleaded facts as well as the elements. GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG United States of America, Inc., 836 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2016) looks at the actual alleged misconduct. ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-3113 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (summary order) looks at the gravamen and treats the inquiry as holistic.
• Confirm who bears the burden. The defendant must demonstrate equivalence. Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012). Review on appeal is de novo. Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005).
• Check for an express statutory carve-out. Section 301(b)(3) and (b)(4), (c) on pre-1972 recordings, (d) on other federal statutes, (f) on moral rights under 17 U.S.C. § 106A. Note: Subsection (c) was rewritten by the Classics Protection and Access Act. Do not rely on older secondary sources describing a 2067 end date.
• Consider conflict preemption separately. Jackson v. Roberts (In re Jackson), 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020) and X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024) apply an obstacle analysis, based on Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141 (1989) and Goldstein v. California, 412 U.S. 546 (1973), even where Section 301(a) might not resolve the claim.

Red flag: Your only extra element is that the defendant "knowingly" or "in bad faith" did the copying. Check SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp., 879 F.3d 1062 (10th Cir. 2018) for the New York argument and then read ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-3113 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (summary order), which declined to treat it as sufficient.

Phase 3: Claim by claim

3A. Contract

• Identify the exact promise breached. Quote it. Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001) preempts a promise that amounts only to not reproducing or distributing.
• Classify the promise. Payment, confidentiality, use or field limit, delivery or affirmative duty, audit, exclusivity, or bare no-copy. Note: Payment: Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001), Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012). Use limit: National Car Rental System, Inc. v. Computer Associates International, Inc., 991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993), Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005). Software limits: ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Affirmative duty: Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 8:21-cv-01943-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal. May 13, 2022).
• Test scope-of-license claims. Universal Instruments Corp. v. Micro Systems Engineering, Inc., 924 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2019) preempted a claim based on a limit implied from the license's silence. Note: Expired-license and scope claims look like infringement. Canal+ Image UK Ltd. v. Lutvak, 773 F. Supp. 2d 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) is a useful district court discussion, and note that the grant versus covenant analysis in MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010) matters on the copyright side.
• Confirm how the contract formed. Signed, clickwrap, browsewrap, conduct. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014); Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022). Note: The Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 22-121 called the browsewrap in ML Genius quite different from a paradigmatic bargain. Reddit, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, No. 25-cv-05643-TLT (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2026), found an implied-in-fact contract from alleged actual knowledge at the remand stage.
• Check the circuit's stance on the promise alone. Compare ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996) and Lipscher v. LRP Publications, Inc., 266 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) with Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001), Universal Instruments Corp. v. Micro Systems Engineering, Inc., 924 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2019), and ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-3113 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (summary order).
• Address the adhesion issue. Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012) flagged the question in a footnote. X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024) emphasized it.

3B. Idea submission and implied contract

• Confirm that this is an implied-in-fact contract. Facts must show assent by conduct. Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012); Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001).
• Plead or test the elements. Disclosure for sale, known condition of payment, voluntary acceptance, use. Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp., 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004) (amended at 400 F.3d 658); Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal. 2d 715 (1956).
• Check whether compensation is alleged or only consent. Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) treated a partnership expectation as enough, but the dissent's argument about consent-only theories will be raised.
• Check industry custom allegations and price terms. Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012); Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 607 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010).
• Confirm the state law source. Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446 (6th Cir. 2001) addresses Michigan law on novelty, and California's law comes from Desny v. Wilder, 46 Cal. 2d 715 (1956). Other states may require more.

3C. Hot news and misappropriation

• Separate general misappropriation from hot news. General misappropriation based on copying is preempted. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992); Alcatel USA, Inc. v. DGI Technologies, Inc., 166 F.3d 772 (5th Cir. 1999); Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc., 845 F.3d 652 (5th Cir. 2017); Financial Information, Inc. v. Moody's Investors Service, Inc., 808 F.2d 204 (2d Cir. 1986).
• Run the five factors. Cost of gathering, time sensitivity, free riding, direct competition, threat to the product's existence or quality. National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997). Note: Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011) narrows this further, and its majority declined to treat the five-part test as binding. ML Genius found copying at eleven days not hot.
• Ask who created the facts. A plaintiff making its own news may lose under Barclays Capital Inc. v. Theflyonthewall.com, Inc., 650 F.3d 876 (2d Cir. 2011). Attribution by the defendant also cuts against the claim.
• Check if any deception obtained the material. Later concealment is not enough. ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-3113 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (summary order).

3D. Unjust enrichment and quasi-contract

• Treat as presumptively preempted. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004); Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 90 F.4th 962 (9th Cir. 2024); Del Madera Properties v. Rhodes & Gardner, Inc., 820 F.2d 973 (9th Cir. 1987); R.W. Beck, Inc. v. E3 Consulting, LLC, 577 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2009).
• Look for a state element beyond use. Digital Drilling Data Systems, L.L.C. v. Petrolink Services, Inc., 965 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2020) (Texas undue advantage, tied to inducing license violations).
• Check whether the benefit came from something other than copying. Reddit, a remand order, relied on technical circumvention and contract restrictions.

3E. Conversion, theft, and computer crime statutes

• Identify whether a tangible object was taken. Survives if so. Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 2003); Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015).
• Treat intangible conversion as presumptively preempted. Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015); United States ex rel. Berge v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, 104 F.3d 1453 (4th Cir. 1997); Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488 (5th Cir. 1990).
• Test state theft and computer statutes against the actual conduct. Rosciszewski v. Arete Associates, Inc., 1 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 1993); OpenRisk, LLC v. MicroStrategy Services Corp., 876 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2017); Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015). Note: Deletion or deprivation is different from copying. OpenRisk, LLC v. MicroStrategy Services Corp., 876 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2017) analyzed deletion separately, and that claim failed on injury.
• For domain names or similar intangibles, check state property law. Kremen v. Cohen, 337 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2003) is about domain names, and Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 90 F.4th 962 (9th Cir. 2024) refused to extend it to copies of websites on screens.

3F. Trade secrets, confidence, fiduciary duty, interference

• Confirm the claim rests on secrecy and improper means. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992); GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG United States of America, Inc., 836 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2016); Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 996 F.2d 655 (4th Cir. 1993); Seng-Tiong Ho v. Taflove, 648 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2011).
• Separate trade secret counts from copying-based companions. Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015).
• Plead any federal claim separately. 18 U.S.C. § 1836 and 18 U.S.C. § 1839 are outside Section 301 by subsection (d).
• Identify the confidential relationship. Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (breach of confidence); Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012) (recognizing confidential relationship claims). A third-party recipient with knowledge may be covered under GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG United States of America, Inc., 836 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2016).
• Identify the fiduciary duty. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004); Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2005).
• For interference, name the contract and the restriction. Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079 (9th Cir. 2005); MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010). Note: A claim that copying merely spoiled licensing opportunities is much weaker. Check Stromback v. New Line Cinema, 384 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2004) and local cases.

3G. Right of publicity

• Identify what was used. The work itself, a clip, a sample, a photo, or an imitation.
• Identify how it was used. Distribution of the work as such versus advertising or merchandise for something else. Maloney v. T3Media, Inc., 853 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2017).
• Apply the work-itself line. Fleet v. CBS, Inc., 50 Cal. App. 4th 1911 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996); Laws v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2006); Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010); Ray v. ESPN, Inc., 783 F.3d 1140 (8th Cir. 2015); Dryer v. National Football League, 814 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2016).
• Apply the identity line. Toney v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 406 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2005); Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001); Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988); Waits v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992); Facenda v. N.F.L. Films, Inc., 542 F.3d 1007 (3d Cir. 2008); Brown v. Ames, 201 F.3d 654 (5th Cir. 2000).
• In the Second Circuit, run both analyses. Jackson v. Roberts (In re Jackson), 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020) (implied preemption, with statutory in the alternative); Melendez v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 50 F.4th 294 (2d Cir. 2022) (statutory, excerpts in ads for the show).
• Check whether endorsement is implied. It can decide the case. Jackson v. Roberts (In re Jackson), 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020); Downing v. Abercrombie & Fitch, 265 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2001). Consider a Lanham Act claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and read False Endorsement Clearance and Claim Checklist: A Practical Checklist.
• Do not rely on the defendant's lack of license. Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) holds that preemption does not depend on the defendant's rights.

3H. Scraping and terms of service

• Divide the claims into access-based and content-based. X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024); X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2024).
• For access, plead or test real impairment. Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 71 P.3d 296 (Cal. 2003); X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2024).
• For content, ask who owns it and what license the platform holds. X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024).
• Identify privacy or other non-copyright interests, truthfully. X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024) left room for these, and Reddit relied on them.
• Check federal access law separately. hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., 31 F.4th 1180 (9th Cir. 2022); Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Claim Checklist: A Practical Checklist.

Red flag: Two judges in one district have reached different results on scraping. Do not tell a client that the law is settled in either direction.

Phase 4: Complete preemption, removal, and remand

• Decide whether complete preemption is recognized in your circuit. Yes: Rosciszewski v. Arete Associates, Inc., 1 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 1993); Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004); Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2005); GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG, 691 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 2012). Doubtful: Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n v. Gannett Co., 658 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2011). Analyzed for ideas: Dunlap v. G&L Holding Group, Inc., 381 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2004). Note: Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003), Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58 (1987) provide the framework. The Supreme Court has not decided the copyright question. Cite Cambridge Literary Properties, Ltd. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik G.m.b.H. & Co. KG, 510 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2007) at page 99 only as Judge Cyr's dissent.
• Identify at least one count that meets both prongs on its face. Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015); GlobeRanger Corp. v. Software AG, 691 F.3d 702 (5th Cir. 2012).
• Calendar 30 days and confirm service. 28 U.S.C. § 1446; Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999).
• Confirm that all served defendants consent if removing under Section 1441. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; 28 U.S.C. § 1446.
• Check for Section 1454. 28 U.S.C. § 1454 applies where a party asserts a claim arising under the copyright laws. Note: A completely preempted counterclaim stays a counterclaim for arising-under purposes under Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009). See also Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (2002).
• Plan supplemental jurisdiction for the remaining counts. 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004).
• Evaluate the response deadline after removal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(c).
• For plaintiffs, calendar the remand motion. Thirty days for procedural defects, and any time for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
• For plaintiffs, evaluate an amendment. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025); Fed. R. Civ. P. 15. Note: Do this before the court rules on dismissal. Once the court dismisses a claim, § 1367(c) discretion applies instead.
• For defendants, assess the fee risk. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005).
• Know that remand is usually final. § 1447(d). Preserve preemption as a state court defense.

Red flag: You are about to cite Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015) for the rule that a post-removal amendment cannot affect jurisdiction. Read Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025) first.

Phase 5: Consequences of a preemption ruling

• Determine whether the ruling dismisses or recharacterizes the claim. Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2004); Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2005); ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-3113 (2d Cir. Mar. 10, 2022) (summary order).
• Run the three-year limitations period. 17 U.S.C. § 507(b); Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, 601 U.S. 366 (2024); Ritchie v. Williams, 395 F.3d 283 (6th Cir. 2005). Use Copyright Claim Timeliness Checklist: A Practical Checklist.
• Check registration before any repleading. 17 U.S.C. § 411(a); Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, 586 U.S. 296 (2019); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154 (2010).
• Check remedies. 17 U.S.C. § 504; 17 U.S.C. § 412. Copyright Damages and Remedies: Statutory Damages, Profits, Injunctions, and Fees covers the details.
• Evaluate standing to sue. 17 U.S.C. § 501(b); Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2008).
• Evaluate fee exposure or a fee motion. 17 U.S.C. § 505; Rosciszewski v. Arete Associates, Inc., 1 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 1993); Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994); Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. 197 (2016).
• Ask for leave to amend with specifics. Melendez v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., 50 F.4th 294 (2d Cir. 2022) affirmed dismissal with prejudice where the plaintiff could not say what he would add.
• Preserve issues for appeal. Denial of remand is reviewed de novo after judgment, as in Spear Marketing, Inc. v. BancorpSouth Bank, 791 F.3d 586 (5th Cir. 2015). Interlocutory review under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) was used in Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google, LLC, 90 F.4th 962 (9th Cir. 2024).

Red flag: A plaintiff has no registration, no ownership, and only preempted counts, and the defendant has fee exposure as a selling point. Discuss with the client now, before a motion is decided.

Phase 6: Final review

For the plaintiff's side:

• Every count has at least one non-copying fact pleaded in detail. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).
• Nothing is pleaded that the client cannot support. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11.
• Alternative counts are clearly alternative. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
• Fraud counts meet Rule 9(b). X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024) shows how specific a court may require such allegations to be.
• You have decided in advance how you will respond to removal. Getting Into or Staying Out of Federal Court: A Practical Guide to Jurisdiction and Removal.

For the defendant's side:

• The motion addresses each count and uses the complaint's own words. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.
• The motion concedes nothing on ownership, copying, or validity.
• Conflict preemption is argued in the alternative where useful. Jackson v. Roberts (In re Jackson), 972 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2020); X Corp. v. Bright Data Ltd., No. C 23-03698 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2024).
• The motion addresses formation separately for web terms. Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014); Berman v. Freedom Financial Network, LLC, 30 F.4th 849 (9th Cir. 2022); Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC, No. 22-121.
• Merits defenses are not lost by focusing on preemption. Trade Secret Defense Checklist: A Practical Checklist and Copyright Infringement Claim Evaluation Checklist: A Practical Checklist can help with what comes next. Federal Jurisdiction and Removal Checklist: A Practical Checklist covers notice mechanics.

This checklist is a general working aid, and it does not replace advice on a particular case or the current law of your circuit.

Related Documents

Related Articles

• Copyright Preemption Under Section 301: When Federal Law Wipes Out Your State Law Claim: the full explanation of the doctrine behind each task.
• Data Scraping After hiQ v. LinkedIn: Copyright, Contract, and Computer Fraud Claims: background for Phase 3H.
• The Right of Publicity: Name, Image, Likeness, Digital Replicas, and the Limits of Owning Yourself: background for Phase 3G.

Related Guides

• Pleading Around or Moving to Dismiss on Copyright Preemption: A Practical Guide: the narrative version, with sequence and trade-offs.
• Removal and Remand: Getting a Case to Federal Court and Keeping It There: detail for Phase 4.

Related Checklists

• Federal Jurisdiction and Removal Checklist: A Practical Checklist: general removal tasks.
• Right of Publicity Clearance Checklist: A Practical Checklist: clearing a use before it becomes a claim.

Related Toolkits

• Copyright Preemption Toolkit: Extra Element Charts, Removal Papers, and Motion Outlines: the working papers that go with this list.
• Copyright Timeliness Toolkit: Accrual Chronologies, Tolling Agreements, and Limitations Motions: for Phase 5 limitations work.