Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. (“MGP”) sued Ruthie Allyn Davis and associated entities (collectively “Ruthie Davis”) for copyright infringement. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Abrams, J.) granted Davis’s motion to dismiss MGP’s complaint as barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations provision. The district court reasoned that copyright holders “sophisticated” in detecting and litigating infringements cannot benefit from the discovery rule. The district court identified MGP as one of these so-called “sophisticated” plaintiffs, concluded that MGP should have therefore discovered Davis’s alleged infringement within three years of when it began, and determined that, because MGP’s complaint touted its “sophistication,” it was clear from the face of the complaint that the claims were time-barred. On appeal, MGP argues that the discovery rule determines when its claims accrued, regardless of its general sophistication in detecting and litigating infringements, and that it was not clear from the face of its complaint or matters of judicial notice that its claims were time-barred. We agree. There is no “sophisticated plaintiff” exception to the discovery rule or to a defendant’s burden to plead and prove a statute-of-limitations defense. Accordingly, we VACATE and REMAND for further proceedings. RICHARD WESLEY, C.J. This appeal concerns the discovery rule and a statute-of-limitations defense in a copyright case where the plaintiff copyright holder is allegedly “sophisticated” in detecting and litigating infringements. Plaintiff-Appellant Michael Grecco Productions, Inc. (“MGP”) alleged that Defendants-Appellees Ruthie Allyn Davis and associated entities and persons (collectively, “Ruthie Davis”) used, without license, Michael Grecco’s copyrighted photos in connection with their designer shoe business. More than four years after Davis’s alleged use began, but less than a year after MGP’s alleged discovery of the use, MGP filed its copyright infringement complaint. The district court dismissed the complaint as barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year limitations period, reasoning that “sophisticated” copyright infringement plaintiffs cannot benefit from the discovery rule. In essence, the district court imposed an injury-based date of accrual to copyright infringement claims, and viewed the discovery rule as an exception not available to a sophisticated plaintiff. The district court then concluded that because MGP’s complaint touted MGP’s “sophistication” in discovering and litigating infringements, it was clear from the complaint that MGP should have discovered Ruthie Davis’s alleged infringement within three years of when it began. We disagree. First, the discovery rule determines when an infringement claim accrues under the Copyright Act, regardless of a copyright holder’s “sophistication” in detecting and litigating infringements. Second, a copyright holder’s general diligence or allegations of diligence in seeking out and litigating infringements, alone, are insufficient to make it clear that the holder’s particular claims in any given case should have been discovered more than three years before the action’s commencement. There is no “sophisticated plaintiff” exception to the discovery rule, or to a defendant’s burden to plead and prove a statute-oflimitations defense. Applying our well-established discovery rule and pleading standards, it was not clear from the face of the complaint, or matters of judicial notice, that MGP’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations as a matter of law. We therefore vacate and remand. BACKGROUND MGP is a photography studio and business owned by Michael Grecco, a commercial photographer. He also presents himself as an industry leader in copyright registration and enforcement, and did so in this case as well. MGP’s complaint described Grecco’s “efforts to educate photographers concerning the benefits of copyright registration,” as well as his view that, in the age of the internet, copyright infringement endangers “the economic viability of photography.” App’x at 8-9 (Compl.
