Lilenfeld PC’s Client won attorneys’ fees that the opposing party (who lost at summary judgment) must pay in a copyright infringement case. Our Client, who was one of the Defendants, had the case dismissed without the need of a trial. (See our April 17, 2018 blog post, Lilenfeld PC Client Wins Complex Copyright Infringement Case Without Going to Trial).
The Court evaluated the factors relating to whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded and found that the Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims were frivolous and not objectively reasonable, partly because we succeeded in convincing the Court that the Plaintiff failed to produce actual blueprint/house plans. This failure made it impossible for the Court to determine what part, if any, of the Plaintiff’s plans deserved copyright protection. Also, the Plaintiff could not prove that our Client’s plans were “substantially similar” to its own plans.
The Court also found that the Plaintiff had at least questionable motivations due to the lack of merits of its copyright infringement claim and the fact that only a single homeowner and contractor were involved, suggesting small actual damages.
Finally, the Court concluded that awarding our Client its attorneys’ fees would serve the goals of compensation and deterrence under copyright laws. Thus, the Court found that our Client is entitled to recover its attorneys’ fees from the Plaintiff