Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees by prevailing litigants. It states that a court, “in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs.” However, no guidance has been provided on this language in more than 20 years. The last word from the High Court occurred in 1994, where the Court held that fees should be equally available to prevailing plaintiffs and defendants, but stated that “no precise rule or formula” existed for when they should be awarded. Four non-exclusive factors were articulated for courts to consider when determining whether attorneys’ fees should be awarded, including: (1) the frivolousness of the case, (2) the motivation of the loser, (3) the objective unreasonableness of the case, and (4) considerations of compensation and deterrence. Yet, the Court complicated matters, noting that the factors must be applied in a manner that is “faithful to the purposes of the Copyright Act.” From this decision sparked a circuit split – while some courts weighed the factors evenly, others focused mainly on serving the “purposes of the Copyright Act.” To confuse matters more, the Second Circuit placed a strong emphasis on the “objective unreasonableness” factor, at the expense of the other factors.
TVEyes is a media monitoring service, claiming, “to organize the world’s TV and radio broadcasts and make them universally searchable by the spoken word.”
The Association of Media and Entertainment Counsel (AMEC), the leading trade association serving general counsel and business affairs attorneys, has named Glaser Weil the 2016 Law Firm of the Year.
On January 27, 2016, Glaser Weil Partner, Mieke Malmberg, moderated a panel for the AIPLA Mid-Winter Institute in La Quinta, California.
Welcome to the IP File, Glaser Weil’s intellectual property law blog. Our mission: to scour the universe for compelling stories in intellectual property law.