Published Part of Opinion on Fee Issues Focuses on Reasonable Hourly Rates in Court Venue.
Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc., Case Nos. A134343/A135831 (1st Dist., Div. 5 May 8, 2014) (partially published; fee discussion on hourly rates published but rest of fee discussion unpublished) dealt with both the merits of a trade misappropriation award, with plaintiff prevailing on one claim (but the right one) to the tune of $1,513,400 after prejudgment interest, and then garnering a pretty big attorney’s fees award of $3,297,102.50 against defendant under Civil Code section 3426.4 [allowing for a prevailing party to recover fees where “willful and malicious misappropriation exists”]. The appellate court affirmed the merits and fee orders across the board.
Defendant first argued that there was no willful/malicious prosecution, but this one bit the dust based on evidence showing defendant entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (nondisclosure agreement) with plaintiff at the same time that defendant was filing certain germane patent applications. The timing alone on a substantial evidence basis shot down this argument.
Defendant next argued that apportionment was necessary because plaintiff won on only the misappropriation claim. Wrong, because the trial judge found that the claims, facts, and evidence were intertwined and interrelated and that the time records were not easily segregated. These specific findings well justified the decision not to apportion.
Defendant then contended, in a section which was published on fee issues, that an award of $600 per hour to Sacramento-based counsel in a San Mateo venued case was too excessive and not “apples to apples.” No, because the relevant community is the venue, which indeed commanded higher rates even if Sacramento counsel was used.“ . . . an award based on local rates is the default rule, from which the trial court may deviate in its discretion, where justified by the circumstances.” (Slip Opn., p. 51.)
Defendant finally argued the time records were incomplete/unreliable, but the appellate court dispatched this one by noting this factor was used to deny a requested lodestar enhancement by plaintiff’s counsel such that the defense did get some traction on this argument, but traction already factored in by the lower court in reducing claimed fees.