Blog February 14, 2018
"Objective Reasonableness" is a Primary Factor, But Not the Sole Factor, When Determining a Fee Award in a Copyright Case
- Person title
FACTS: John Wiley & Sons ("Wiley") filed a lawsuit against Supap Kirtsaeng ("Kirtsaeng") when it discovered that Kirtsaeng's family and friends abroad were purchasing Wiley textbooks at a discounted rate and shipping them to Kirtsaeng in the U.S., where Kirtsaeng was re-selling them for a profit. This case was before the Supreme Court previously in 2013, at which time the Court ruled in Kirtsaeng's favor, holding that the "first-sale doctrine" was a defense to Wiley's claim of copyright infringement. Following this victory, Kirtsaeng returned to the District Court seeking more than $2 million in attorney's fees under the fee-shifting provisions of the Copyright Act (the "Act"). The District Court denied Kirtsaeng's application, holding that when a losing party takes a reasonable position during litigation — as Wiley had done — a fee award is counter to the purpose of the Copyright Act. The Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, noting that it was appropriate to place "substantial weight" on the reasonableness of the losing party's position.
DECISION: The Supreme Court held that the "objective reasonableness" of the losing party's position carries significant weight in determining whether to award attorney's fees, but that it cannot be the only factor considered. Rather, the Court emphasized that "courts must view all the circumstances of a case on their own terms, in light of the Copyright Act's essential goals" of enriching the general public through access to creative works, which requires a balance of encouraging and rewarding author's creations, while also enabling others to build on that work.
The Court went on to say that placing substantial weight on the "objective reasonableness" of the losing party's position furthers the purpose of the Act because it encourages those parties with strong legal positions to stand on their rights, and deters those with weak ones from proceeding with litigation. The Court saw no reason to disregard the restrictions and factors that had previously been established in its Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) decision. The restrictions from Fogerty are that (1) fees may not be awarded as a matter of course, and (2) the court may not treat prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants differently. That decision also included "several nonexclusive factors" to consider in the question of awarding fees under the Act: "frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness[,]" and the need to consider compensation and deterrence.
The Court remanded the case to ensure that the district court did not rely solely on the "objective reasonableness" of Wiley's position.
This decision provides further clarification on the standard that courts should apply in determining whether to award fees, but still affords district courts with wide latitude in making the ultimate decision.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog June 5, 2017
Distillations: Two Ships Passing Not So Quietly in the Night
Blog June 1, 2017
Distillations: Respect Thy Neighbor (on the Shelf)
Article May 2, 2017
USPTO audits go mainstream: prepare for the unexpected | World Trademark Review
Blog March 30, 2017
Distillations: ALERT: Skull Crushing Victory
Blog March 23, 2017
Distillations: A Toast to Champagne
Blog July 20, 2016
Half-baked Specimens Doom HERBAL ACCESS Application at TTAB
Article February 17, 2016
Feeling The Burn
Blog February 8, 2016
A Word of Warning for Super Bowl Fans
Blog January 20, 2016
Kirtsaeng Looks to Take Second Bite Out of the Supreme Court Apple
Blog September 22, 2023
TTAB Rules Consumer Perception Remains the Critical Inquiry for Generic.gTLD Marks
Blog August 30, 2023
Legal Alert: USPTO Warns Trademark Applicants to Beware of Spoofed Calls
Blog March 28, 2023
U.S. Copyright Office Cancels Registration for AI-Generated Art, Issues AI-Related Registration Guidance
Article March 16, 2023
Attorneys Kristen McCallion and Darra Loganzo Co-Author World Trademark Review Article "Could AI Require Platforms to Do More to Prevent Infringement?"
Blog February 10, 2023
Need-to-Knows of the New Copyright Claims Board for Small-Value Copyright Claims
Blog December 12, 2022
Legal Alert: USPTO Updates Deadline to Respond to Trademark Office Actions
Q&A August 22, 2022
Principal Vivian Cheng Featured in Law.com Q&A Series "How I Made Partner"
Article June 16, 2022
Principal Cynthia Walden and Associate Sarah Kelleher Author World Intellectual Property Review Article "Selling the Intangible in Fashion: What Does It...
Blog March 8, 2022
The Basics of TTAB Cancellations
Blog November 9, 2021