Bringing, Defending, or Opting Out of a Copyright Claims Board Proceeding: A Practitioner's Guide
By Casey Scott McKay ·
This guide is the operational half of the Marksy article on the Copyright Claims Board, and it assumes you know the thirty-thousand-dollar cap and the sixty-day opt-out. It runs a proceeding through thirteen stages from both chairs, beginning with the respondent assessment that should precede any filing - because a represented respondent will usually opt out and the claim then costs a filing fee for nothing - and ending with collection on a determination that a district court has confirmed. It supplies a claim-drafting protocol built around the compliance defects that send a large share of claims back for amendment, guidance on choosing between the standard and smaller-claims tracks, a damages model that works backward from the caps, drafting for the underused misrepresentation claim, and the written-testimony practice that decides most proceedings. The defense half gives the arithmetic a respondent should run before opting out, because opting out trades a capped forum for an uncapped one, and explains when staying is the better answer.
IP and Technology > Copyright | Guide | Published 12 October 2023 - Updated 18 October 2025 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us
Summary. This guide is the operational half of the Marksy article on the Copyright Claims Board, and it assumes you know the thirty-thousand-dollar cap and the sixty-day opt-out. It runs a proceeding through thirteen stages from both chairs, beginning with the respondent assessment that should precede any filing — because a represented respondent will usually opt out and the claim then costs a filing fee for nothing — and ending with collection on a determination that a district court has confirmed. It supplies a claim-drafting protocol built around the compliance defects that send a large share of claims back for amendment, guidance on choosing between the standard and smaller-claims tracks, a damages model that works backward from the caps, drafting for the underused misrepresentation claim, and the written-testimony practice that decides most proceedings. The defense half gives the arithmetic a respondent should run before opting out, because opting out trades a capped forum for an uncapped one, and explains when staying is the better answer.
Keywords: ccb claim filing · compliance review defects · respondent assessment opt out · service of notice · smaller claims track · written testimony submission · limited discovery ccb · damages calculation cap · statutory damages tier · section 512(f) claim drafting · declaration of noninfringement · default determination · register review · district court confirmation · collection on determination · registration batching · demand letter sequencing · respondent arithmetic · bad faith bar
This is premium Marksy content — the full document is available to subscribers.