Successful Infringement Claim on Four of Six Asserted Works Does Not Warrant “Prevailing Party” Status Under § 505​

The court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider a prior denial of attorney fees and rejected defendant’s argument that partial granting of its summary judgment motion rendered defendant the “prevailing party” under § 505. “In the [summary judgment] Order, the Court granted [defendant] summary judgment on [plaintiff’s] copyright claims based on four works and denied [defendant’s] request for summary judgment on [plaintiff’s] copyright claims based on [two other works]. The Order addressed [defendant’s] request for attorney’s fees by stating that ‘⁠[defendant’s] Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in part. Therefore, [defendant] is not entitled to attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.’ [Defendant] has not presented the Court with any authority that establishes that a party becomes ‘the prevailing party’ for purposes of 17 U.S.C. § 505 when its motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. Accordingly, the Court finds that [defendant] has not carried its burden of demonstrating that the Court committed clear error when it denied [defendant’s] request for attorney’s fees.”

Leadership Studies, Inc. d/b/a Center For Leadership Studies v. Blanchard Training and Development, Inc. et al, 3-15-cv-01831 (CASD 2018-04-12, Order) (William Q. Hayes)

2018-04-16T13:32:02+00:00April 16th, 2018|Copyright, Docket Report|