for Raising a Copyright Claim Defendant argues that Micro Focus fails to plead a copyright infringement claim with regard to Net Express because its application is still pending witli the U.S. Copyright Office. (D.I. 6 at 4; see D.I. 1 at 3, ¶ 9). 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) requires that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” Courts ¿re divided as to whether a pending application to the Copyright Office (the “application” approach) or an issuance of the registration (the “registration” approach) is required to file a copyright infringement claim. See Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/Interactivecorp., 606 F.3d 612, 615-16 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). The Third Circuit has not yet addressed this
holding that the conclusion that the wiretap was necessary in each situation is reviewed for an abuse of discretion and bringing the tenth circuit into accordance with the authority of a majority of other circuits holding that a mistake by a partys counsel in interpreting a statute of limitations does not present the extraordinary circumstance beyond the partys control where equity should step in to give the party the benefit of his erroneous understanding and noting a majority of other circuits agree citing cases from the second third fifth seventh eighth ninth eleventh and federal circuits recognizingthat the fifth and seventh circuits have adopted the application approach whereas the tenth and eleventh circuits have adopted the registration approach recognizing limitations existence in other circuits holding that when our circuits law is unsettled and other federal circuits have reached divergent conclusions the claimed error could not be clear or obvious under the second prong of the plain error test