October 2009 E.D. Va. IP litigation opinion roundup, part 2

This post continues a roundup of recent Eastern District of Virginia decisions in IP cases, covering an opinion dealing with fees and costs in a copyright infringement case.

In Quantum Sys. Integrators, Inc. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., case no. 1:07-cv-491, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98742 (E.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2009), District Judge Liam O’Grady issued an opinion regarding a prior attorney’s fees and costs award that had been remanded in an unpublished opinion by the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in accordance with Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994) and Rosciszewski v. Arete Assocs., Inc., 1 F.3d 225, 234 (4th Cir. 1993) (endorsing and requiring, respectively, the consideration in making fees and costs awards of the following non-exclusive factors: (1) “the motivation of the parties”; (2) “the objective reasonableness of the legal and factual positions advanced”; and (3) “the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence”).

The Quantum opinion is a good refresher on the application of 17 U.S.C. § 505, allowing district courts discretion to award attorney’s fees and costs to prevailing parties in copyright infringement cases, and on the Fourth Circuit’s rubric for determining the reasonableness of attorney’s fees. Quantum had sued Spring for approximately $1.5 million in damages for copyright infringement and fraud. Quantum won a jury verdict for $178,000, but the Court reduced that to $69,600 on Sprint’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Despite finding that Quantum was a prevailing party and that Quantum’s attorney’s rates and time were reasonable, the Court nonetheless reduced the fees and costs by approximately 32% and 24%, respectively, in view of Quantum’s limited success in the case.