Geophysical Service Incorporated v. TGS-Nopec Geophysical Company, 4:14-cv-01368

Geophysical Services sued TGS-NOPEC for copyright infringement over seismic lines; the district court dismissed the claims and TGS moved for attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
TGS sought $170,706 in attorney’s fees and $236.95 in costs; it was represented by Norton Rose Fulbright (one partner and one senior associate staffed the matter).
The court found Geophysical’s direct-infringement allegations conclusory and speculative; contributory-infringement claims were closer but ultimately dismissed for independent reasons.
Applying Fogerty factors, the court concluded Geophysical’s claims were objectively unreasonable in part, and that compensation and deterrence supported awarding fees to the prevailing defendant.
The court set reasonable hourly rates at $500 (partner) and $400 (associate), reduced associate hours by 15% for excessiveness, and computed a lodestar of $132,888 in fees.
The court awarded taxable costs of $236.95 under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, rejecting the argument that dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) precluded cost recovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TGS is entitled to attorney's fees under § 505	Geophysical did not explicitly concede; argued fees were inappropriate given dismissal language in final judgment	TGS argued it prevailed and Fogerty factors support fees (objective unreasonableness, deterrence, compensation)	Court awarded fees: prevailing defendant entitled to fees in discretion; Fogerty factors favored TGS
Whether Geophysical’s claims were frivolous or objectively unreasonable	Claims were not in bad faith and not patently frivolous	TGS argued the direct claim lacked factual support and contributory claim was an aggressive, unreasonable expansion	Court: direct claim lacked factual support; contributory claim not patently frivolous but objectively unreasonable in part; this factor favors awarding fees
Reasonableness of requested hourly rates	Implicitly argued rates were high given market medians	TGS supported higher rates ($580 partner/$455 associate) based on firm, skill, complexity	Court adopted reduced rates: $500 partner, $400 associate as reasonable in context
Reasonableness of hours billed	Geophysical contended hours were excessive/duplicative; highlighted prior dismissal language	TGS provided detailed contemporaneous billing totaling 80 partner and 273.2 associate hours	Court reduced associate hours by 15% (case dismissed on 12(b)(6)), awarded fees based on 80 partner hrs and 232.22 associate hrs (lodestar $132,888)

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (Sup. Ct.) (district courts have discretion to award fees to prevailing parties under § 505; rejected dual standard favoring prevailing plaintiffs)
Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Thompson, 512 F.3d 724 (5th Cir.) (fee awards to prevailing parties in copyright cases are common but not automatic)
Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (Sup. Ct.) (hours that are excessive, redundant, or unnecessary should be excluded; courts may trim fat)
Tollett v. City of Kemah, 285 F.3d 357 (5th Cir.) (prevailing market rate standard for reasonable hourly rates)
Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311 (5th Cir.) (Johnson factors may be subsumed into lodestar; avoid double counting)
Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc., 387 F.3d 403 (5th Cir.) (affirming substantial fee award to prevailing defendant)
Gen. Universal Sys., Inc. v. Lee, 379 F.3d 131 (5th Cir.) (affirming fee awards to prevailing defendants in copyright litigation)
Assessment Techs., LLC v. WIREdata, Inc., 361 F.3d 434 (7th Cir.) (defendant may obtain fees where plaintiff seeks to annex public domain; discussion of deterrence/compensation)
Coles v. Wonder, 283 F.3d 798 (6th Cir.) (awarding fees where plaintiff's position lacked circuit support and was objectively unreasonable)