Page:Thaler v. Perlmutter, Response to Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf/17

 {| As Plaintiff acknowledges, the Office’s refusal to register the Work is governed by the APA. See Dkt. 16 at 6. In setting the scope of judicial review, the APA provides that courts may “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be … arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706. As discussed above, the Supreme Court has held that “the agency must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43 (citation omitted). A “satisfactory explanation” is one from which “the agency’s [decision] path may reasonably be discerned,” and does not require express or detailed analysis of every argument raised. Id. The burden is on the party challenging an agency’s decision under the APA. See Nuvio Corp. v. FCC, 473 F.3d 302, 305 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (noting that, under the APA, it is “petitioners’ burden” to show that an action is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)).
 * Plaintiff Must Show the Office’s Decision was Arbitrary, Capricious, or an Abuse of Discretion to Prevail on itshis [sic] APA Claim
 * }
 * Plaintiff Must Show the Office’s Decision was Arbitrary, Capricious, or an Abuse of Discretion to Prevail on itshis [sic] APA Claim
 * }

Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden here. The refusal to register the Work was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor an abuse of discretion. The Office credited Plaintiff’s representation of the Work as created “autonomously” by a machine and applied longstanding legal criteria to conclude it must deny Plaintiff’s registration application. The Office considered and rejected the arguments asserted by Plaintiff, and it explained clearly how it applied the law to Plaintiff’s application. In particular, the Review Board’s February 14, 2022 decision provided a satisfactory explanation and rational basis for the decision to refuse registration of the Work. See Dkt. 13-8 at US_0000037 (“Because copyright law as codified in the 1976 Act requires human authorship, the Work cannot be registered.”).