Civil Procedure & Federal Courts Blog

Federal Circuit Reverses Award of Attorney's Fees to Justin Timberlake & Britney Spears

Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in Large Audience Display Systems v. Tennman Productions, LLC. It reversed the district court’s award of attorney’s fees to (among others) Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears. Here’s the opinion’s first paragraph:

Large Audience Display Systems, LLC (“LADS”) appeals from the district court’s order granting a motion for attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 filed by Appellees Justin Timberlake, Tennman Productions, LLC, Britney Spears, and Spears King Pole, Inc. (collectively, “Appellees”). We find that certain of the factors relied upon by the district court to find this case to be exceptional were entitled to no weight under § 285. We therefore vacate the district court’s award of attorney’s fees and costs, and remand for reconsideration of Appellees’ motion.

Download Large Audience Display Systems (Fed Cir)

Will the ruling affect recent rumors of a possible Spears-Timberlake collaboration? Stay tuned.

 

 

 

On Stage at the Ciara Concert: She Got Served?

From NBC: Singer Ciara gets served legal papers in middle of concert (with video).

--A

(Hat Tip: Jack Preis)

More Civ Pro Video

We covered earlier the Full Faith & Credit video from the Columbia Law Revue, which won a narrow victory in Above The Law’s Law Revue Video Contest.

Now comes a video, courtesy of the 2012 Emory Law Follies, that features civil procedure prof Rich Freer expertly channeling Michael Bolton (and others):

 

--A

(Hat Tip: Thom Main)

Law Revue Land Shows Some Love For Civil Procedure

Video here. And it's one of the finalists for Above The Law's Law Revue Video Contest.

(Hat tip: Chris Newman)

--A

Music Industry's $675K Judgment Against File-Sharing College Student Reduced as Unconstitutionally Excessive

In a closely-watched federal lawsuit brought by several major recording companies, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner has reduced a damage award against a defendant who illegally downloaded 30 songs when he was in college. The case is Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, 07cv11446-NG (D. Mass. July 9, 2010).

Judge Gertner’s opinion begins: “This copyright case raises the question of whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause is violated by a jury’s award of $675,000 in statutory damages against an individual who reaped no pecuniary reward from his infringement and whose individual infringing acts caused the plaintiffs minimal harm. I hold that it is.” Here’s more from the opinion’s introduction:

Joel Tenenbaum (“Tenenbaum”), the defendant in this action, was accused of using filesharing software to download and distribute thirty copyrighted songs belonging to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are a group of the country’s biggest recording companies. Their lawsuit against Tenenbaum is one of thousands that they have brought against file sharers throughout the country. Tenenbaum, like many of the defendants in these suits, was an undergraduate when his file-sharing was detected.

Although the plaintiffs presented evidence that Tenenbaum illegally downloaded and shared thousands of recordings, the trial focused on his infringement of the plaintiffs’ copyrights in thirty songs. As to these songs, Tenenbaum’s liability for infringement was not seriously in question. . . . The only questions for the jury were whether Tenenbaum’s infringements were willful and what amount of damages was appropriate. . . . The jury did find that Tenenbaum willfully infringed the plaintiffs’ copyrights and imposed damages of $22,500 per song, yielding a total award of $675,000.

. . .

I conclude that the jury’s award of $675,000 in statutory damages for Tenenbaum’s infringement of thirty copyrighted works is unconstitutionally excessive. This award is far greater than necessary to serve the government’s legitimate interests in compensating copyright owners and deterring infringement. In fact, it bears no meaningful relationship to these objectives. . . . It cannot withstand scrutiny under the Due Process Clause.

For the reasons I discuss below, I reduce the jury’s award to $2,250 per infringed work, three times the statutory minimum, for a total award of $67,500. Significantly, this amount is more than I might have awarded in my independent judgment. But the task of determining the appropriate damages award in this case fell to the jury, not the Court. I have merely reduced the award to the greatest amount that the Constitution will permit given the facts of this case.

For additional coverage see the AP and How Appealing.

--A

(Hat Tip: Howard Bashman)