Cases: Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property, POOF!, Celebrities: Ninth Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment In Favor Of Madonna, Producer Of The Song “Vogue,” And Others Based on De Minimis Copyright “Copying”

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!

  However, Attorney’s Fees Award For The Material Girl And Other Defendants Reversed Because Plaintiff’s Theory Was Not Objectively Unreasonable.   Source:  Wikipedia, Article “Madonna.”  Author: Olavtenbroek.   Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.     Well, VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Madonna Ciccone, Nos. 13-57104/14-55837 (9th Cir. June 2, 2016) (published) does involve the “Material Girl” […]

In The News . . . . Robin Thicke And Pharrell Williams Officially Dodge Attorney’s Fees Exposure In Marvin Gaye Copyright Infringement Suit

Cases: Intellectual Property, In The News

  However, They Were Ordered To Pay 65% Of Certain Litigation Expenses.     On March 19, 2016, we posted on U.S. District Judge John A. Kronstadt’s tentative decision to deny fees to Marvin Gaye’s estate in a copyright infringement case in which Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were found to have infringed on one of

Intellectual Property/In The News: N.D. Ill. District Judge Awards All Of Requested $6,069,266.81 In Fees To Defendant Winning Patent Infringement Case

Cases: Intellectual Property

  Fee Justified Because Case Was Exceptional, And No “Granular” Analysis Required By District Judge.     In Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange LLC, Case No. 07 C 623 (N.D. Ill. Docket No. 778 Mar. 31, 2016), U.S. District Judge Joan H. Lefkow awarded CBOE all of its requested $6,069,266.81 in attorney’s

Intellectual Property, Section 998, Section 1717: Prevailing Defendants Properly Denied Fee Recovery, But Improperly Denied Expert Witness Fees

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Section 1717, Cases: Section 998

  No Need to Provide Declarations From Expert Witness Fee In Support Of Expense Request Under CCP § 998.      What happened in Nations Title Co. of Calif. v. Security Union Title Ins. Co, Case Nos. B250490/B253840 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Jan. 25, 2016) (unpublished), was that defendants won a jury verdict on a breach

Cases Under Review/Intellectual Property: SCOTUS Will Decide What Standard Applies In Making Award Of Attorney’s Fees Under Copyright Act Section 505

Cases: Cases Under Review, Cases: Intellectual Property

  Certiorari Granted On January 15, 2016 From Second Circuit Denial Of Fees To Prevailing Defendant.      The U.S. Supreme Court, on January 15, 2016, granted certiorari to resolve a split among circuit courts on the proper standard for awarding attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 505). The case is Kirtsaeng d/b/a

Intellectual Property: City Of Inglewood Must Pay Winning Copyright Infringement Defendant $117,741 In Attorney’s Fees And Costs

Cases: Intellectual Property

  District Judge Found Suit Meritless And An Attempt To Stifle Political Speech.     17 U.S.C. § 505 is a section allowing a district judge to discretionarily award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in a copyright infringement case.  That section can be a powerful incentive to a plaintiff to make sure it brings a meritorious

Intellectual Property, Celebrities: S.D.N.Y. District Judge Awards $667,849.14 In Attorney’s Fees Out Of $2.4 Million Request To Beastie Boys Based On Willful Copyright Infringement Win Against Monster Energy Company

Cases: Celebrities, Cases: Intellectual Property

    No Basis For Fees Under Lanham Act “Exceptional Case” Fee Shifting, With Fee Reductions Made For Partner Heavy Staffing, Inefficiencies, Unsuccessful Work Effort, And The Fee-Shifting Policy Underlying Copyright Act.        Beastie Boys sued Monster Energy Company for copyright and trademark (false endorsement) infringement against Monster Energy Company, the maker of the Monster

Intellectual Property: Bad Lawyering, In The Form Of Overstatements Or Sloppy Arguments, Is Not Litigation Misconduct To Justify Fee Denial Under Octane

Cases: Intellectual Property

  Fee Request Remanded To See If Any Change In Result.      In Gaymar Industries, Inc. v. Cincinnati Sub-Zero Products, Inc., No. 2014-1174 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2015), a district court (based on a magistrate judge’s recommendations) denied “exceptional case” attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 to defendant prevailing in a patent infringement case.

Scroll to Top