First Circuit Affirms Attorneys' Fee Award that Far Exceeded Damages Award in Copyright Case
This case is an excellent reminder that there can be more to worry about in copyright infringement cases than damages.
Plaintiff Jason Spooner sued a number of defendants for copyright infringement based on the alleged use of plaintiff's song in an advertisement.
Plaintiff settled with certain of the defendants for $30,000 and plaintiff then prevailed at the bench trial against the remaining defendants. The court found that defendants had willfully infringed plaintiff's copyright and granted plaintiff injunctive relief and $40,000 in statutory damages. As to the $40,000 in statutory damages, the court set off the amount paid by the settling defendants, leaving plaintiff with a net additional recovery of $10,000 in statutory damages.
The court also determined that plaintiff was entitled to his attorneys' fees as the prevailing party, ultimately awarding $98,745.80 in fees. Defendants appealed, primarily arguing that the attorneys' fee request was so extravagant that the request should have been denied entirely.
The First Circuit acknowledged, as did the trial court, that the attorneys' fee award "far exceeded both the statutory damages that the plaintiff had recovered ($40,000) and the lesser amount that he stood to collect after setting off the . . . settlement ($10,000)." But the "law . . . does not demand strict proportionality between fees and damages," the First Circuit noted.
The trial court has discretion to deny fees entirely if the requested fees are "gluttonously high," the First Circuit stated, but noted that "denying fees altogether because of an overly ambitious fee request is a drastic step" that should "be administered sparingly and in only the most egregious cases." Here, the First Circuit concluded that the trial court had "thoughtfully considered the question of fees, faithfully applied the lodestar method, and gave a plausible rationale for the amount of the award." Attorneys' fee award affirmed.
The case cite is Spooner v. EEN, Inc., No. 10-2393 (1st Cir. July 5, 2011).
