Defense Did Not Oppose, But Plaintiffs Documented Things Well.
Plaintiff’s counsel in Situation Management Systems, Inc. v. Lamoco Consulting, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-11557-RGS (D. Mass. June 6, 2011 Order) requested $718,015.53 in attorney’s fees and expenses for their winning client in a copyright infringement action where the governing statute allows fees to be awarded in the court’s discretion if the work was registered prior to infringement. (17 U.S.C. § 412.) Although the fee request was unopposed, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns awarded the “whole tamale,” plus costs of $25,733.39 and a chance for plaintiffs to recoup fees for this successful fee application.
District Judge Stearns gave us all a nice “roadmap” of factors that led to this award:
- 1. Presenting good billing statements for judicial review;
- 2. Documenting efforts by supervising attorneys to weed out duplicative/inefficient items from billing statements;
- Demonstrating that the defense infringement was willful/predatory in nature;
- Showing the seasoned experience of plaintiff’s attorneys working the areas ofthe case that required the greatest skill;
- Using reasonable hourly rates for the Boston legal community; and,
- Documenting well the comparable costs of similar intellectual property litigationmatters.
U.S. District Court Judge David O. Carter is considering MGA’s request for fees under the same copyright fee entitlement statute in the Bratz litigation pending in the Central District of California, Santa Ana courthouse. A ruling is expected to come out soon.