Cases: Intellectual Property

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. […]

Intellectual Property, Reasonableness Of Fees: Copyright Act Does Not Preempt Fee Entitlement Under Broad Contractual Fees Clause

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Reasonableness of Fees

  However, District Judge’s Award Of Only 15% of Requested Fees Vacated/Remanded For Another Adjudication On the Issue.      In an issue of first impression, the Ninth Circuit in Ryan v. Editions Limited West, Inc., Nos. 12-17810/13-15061 (9th Cir. May 19, 2015) (published), decided that the Copyright Act of 1976 does not expressly or implicitly

Intellectual Property: Post-Octane/Highmark Fee Requests Have Been Granted In Much More Exponential Fashion

Cases: Intellectual Property

  Federal Circuit Bar Association Study So Concludes.      We have posted before about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Octane/Highmark (134 S.Ct. 1749 and 134 S.Ct. 1744 (2014)), where district judges were given more discretion in determining if patent cases were exceptional for purposes of awarding attorney’s fees to prevailing, accused infringers. A recent

Intellectual Property: Federal Circuit Vacates And Remands Attorney’s Fees Denial To Vizio In Patent Infringement Case

Cases: Intellectual Property

  District Judge’s Findings Of Certain Conduct Showed Case Likely Was Exceptional Under Patent Fee-Shifting Statute.      In Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc., No. 2014-1297 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 10, 2015), a district judge denied attorney’s fees and expert witness fees to defendant Vizio, Inc. in a patent infringement suit even though the federal judge

Intellectual Property: Sixth Circuit Court Of Appeals Remand District Judge’s Denial Of Attorney’s Fees Under Trademark Fee-Shifting Provision

Cases: Intellectual Property

  Remanded To Consider Impact Of Octane Fitness’ Reasoning In Patent Area To Trademark Fee-Shifting Statute.      The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Slep-Tone Entertainment Corp. v. Karoke Kandy Store, Inc., No. 14-3117 (6th Cir. April 6, 2015) (published), dealt with a case where defendants won a trademark infringement case brought by plaintiff, which

Intellectual Property, Prevailing Party: $1,518,687.94 In Fees Against Three Losing Defendants Justified In Lanham Act False Endorsement Case Involving Bob Marley’s Image

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Prevailing Party

  Base Award Against Prevailing Plaintiffs Was $648,543.00.      The Ninth Circuit in Fifty-Six Hope Road Music, Ltd. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., Case No. 12-17502 (9th Cir. Feb. 20, 2015) (published) affirmed, in a 2-1 decision, the merits of compensatory/lost profit awards against five defendants in a Lanham Act false endorsement suit brought by two plaintiffs

Costs, Intellectual Property, POOF: Costs Against Copyright Infringement Plaintiff Went POOF Upon Reversal Of Summary Judgment In Favor Of Defense

Cases: Costs, Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: POOF!

  License Agreement Involving the “Four Seasons” Was At Center Of Controversy.      This next post is a fun one, involving the “Four Seasons” and “Jersey Boys,” and of course the different band members and an agreement between all of them granting transfer of rights about aspects of their lives with the band, including biographies.

Intellectual Property/Undertaking: District Courts Diverge On Whether To Order Bondings For Costs/Fees Under CCP § 1030 In Patent And Copyright Cases

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Undertaking

  Undertakings Ordered in Copyright Cases, But Denied in Patent Cases.      Charlene M. Morrow and Brian E. Lahti of Fenwick & West LLP have written an interesting article in the October 31, 2014 issue of BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 88 PTCJ 1705.      In this article, they explore how district courts in

Intellectual Property/Prevailing Party/Special Fee Shifting Statute: 4/3 DCA Determines That Penal Code Section 502’s Fee Entitlement Provision Applies to Both “Prevailing” Plaintiffs And Defendants

Cases: Intellectual Property, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes

  Appellate Court Agrees With Trial Court Analysis, Which Departed From Contrary S.D. Cal. Federal Decision.      Plaintiff search engine optimization firm sued defendant marketing firm for breach of contract, prompting defendant to countersue plaintiff (as a cross-defendant) for breach of contract and for a violation of Penal Code section 502 (a computer hacking claim

Scroll to Top