Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Vito & Nick’s, Inc. v. Barraco., No. 05 C 2764, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2008) (Nolan, Mag. J.)

Judge Nolan granted defendants’ motion for litigation costs, but denied defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff sued defendants alleging trademark infringement, Lanham Act unfair competition, Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices and related state law claims based upon a dispute over sibling’s competing use of the name of a family business. After initiation of the suit, the parties engaged in extensive settlement negotiations resulting in a framework for settlement. But plaintiff was unable to come up with funds necessary for the settlement and then lost its counsel. Because plaintiff was unable to find replacement counsel, and because corporations cannot appear pro se, plaintiff’s case was eventually dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Court held that plaintiff’s conduct resulting in dismissal did not constitute bad faith warranting an award for attorney’s fees. Plaintiff actively participated in the case and settlement negotiations, until it was unable to come up with the funds required, and lost its counsel. Furthermore, the Court had not had occasion to review the viability of plaintiff’s claim and, therefore, a bad faith finding could not be based upon the viability of the claims.

The Court did, however, award defendants their costs as prevailing parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1), as follows:

• Costs of serving the summons and subpoenas;
   
• Court reporter, videographer, and transcript fees (transcripts were limited to $3.30 per page and did include indexes, minuscripts or other attorney convenience features);
   
• Witness fees; and
   
• Copy costs (limited to $.10 - $.20 per page).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Hyperquest, Inc. v. N’Site Solutions, Inc., No. 08 C 483, 2008 WL 3978310 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2008) (Shadur, Sen. J.)

Judge Shadur continued defendants’ motion for fees as a prevailing party in this copyright case pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §505, after previously requiring additional briefing as to the reasonableness of defendants’ requested fees – click here to read about that opinion in the Blog’s archives. Defendants collectively requested approximately $260K in fees. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s argument that defendants did not offer proof that defendants had paid their counsels’ fees. But the Court set a hearing to discuss an appropriate award, noting that plaintiff’s counsel’s fees, approximately $110K, were a more appropriate sum, with some adjustment for the fact that there were two defendants.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Hyperquest, Inc. v. N’Site Solutions, Inc., et al., No. 08 C 483, --F. Supp. 2d--, 2008 WL 2446206 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 18, 2008) (Shadur, Sen. J.)

Judge Shadur granted defendants’ motion for attorney’s fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, after previously dismissing plaintiffs’ copyright claims for lack of standing – click here for the Blog’s post about that opinion. Plaintiff agreed that defendants were not § 505 “prevailing parties” because the case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. But the Court explained that its opinion and the parties’ underlying briefs used imprecise language, citing an Abraham Lincoln pearl of wisdom:

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a let don’t make it a leg.

The case was not dismissed for lack of a properly registered copyright (subject matter jurisdiction), but because plaintiff lacked sufficient right to assert the copyright (standing). Because the case was dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing, defendants were prevailing parties and an attorney’s fee award was warranted.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)

Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc., No. 2007-1998, -1348 Slip. Op. (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2008).

The Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Darrah's award of defendant's/appellee's attorney's fees – click here to read the Blog's post about the inequitable conduct opinion. Judge Darrah previously held and the Federal Circuit previously affirmed that plaintiffs committed inequitable conduct by, among other things: (1) falsely claiming small entity status; (2) failing to disclose material prior art to the PTO; and (3) failing to disclose related litigation to the PTO. Judge Darrah then held that the case was exceptional based upon plaintiff's inequitable conduct, filing of a frivolous suit, and litigation misconduct. Because the case was exceptional, Judge Darrah awarded defendants their attorney's fees.

The Federal Circuit agreed with plaintiffs, holding that an inequitable conduct finding did not require a case be deemed exceptional. But the Court held that Judge Darrah's findings were supported by evidence and, therefore, were within his discretion.

Judge Newman dissented, stating:

The court today promotes unexceptional trial procedures and non-culpable prosecution errors into an "exceptional case" of such severity as to warrant the award of attorney fees. That is not what the status, or precedent, or policy contemplates. I respectfully dissent.

 

Check the following blogs for more on this opinion:

• Filewrapper
  
• Patently-O

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks