152 F. Supp. 3d 503
E.D. Va.2015Background
- Humphreys & Partners (plaintiff) designed and registered an architectural work (Grant Park); defendants designed and built Two Park Crest, which plaintiff alleged infringed that registration.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants finding no extrinsic similarity and that contested features were unprotectable or arranged differently; Fourth Circuit affirmed. See Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2015).
- After affirmance, three defendant groups (Lessard, Penrose, Northwestern) sought attorney’s fees and costs under 17 U.S.C. § 505; Clark Builders withdrew its motion after a fee agreement.
- The court applied Fogerty’s evenhanded standard and the Fourth Circuit’s Rosciszewski factors (motivation, objective reasonableness, compensation/deterrence, other factors) with objective reasonableness given special weight.
- The court found plaintiffs positions not frivolous but overall objectively unreasonable (especially because they relied on unprotectable ideas/features and sought extraordinarily large damages), and noted indications plaintiff’s litigation posture increased need for deterrence/compensation.
- The court reduced the fee requests substantially for excessive hourly rates, lumped and vague time entries, duplicative billing, and unrecoverable categories of costs, and awarded adjusted attorney fees and only taxable costs recoverable under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821, 1920.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Are defendants "prevailing parties" for §505 purposes (Lessard disputed)? | Lessard is not a prevailing party because it lost on a counterclaim. | Defendants argued they prevailed on plaintiff’s infringement claims and therefore are prevailing parties despite a lost counterclaim. | Court: Defendants (including Lessard) are prevailing parties; a prevailing party need not prevail on every claim. |
| 2. Should attorney’s fees and costs be awarded under §505 (discretionary)? | Humphreys contended fees were inappropriate—its suit was not frivolous and raised unsettled law. | Defendants argued Fogerty’s evenhanded approach, deterrence/compensation needs, and plaintiffs’ litigation posture support fees. | Court: Fees appropriate. Although claims were not frivolous, they were objectively unreasonable overall and other Rosciszewski factors (motivation; deterrence/compensation) favor awarding fees. |
| 3. Are the amounts and hourly rates claimed reasonable (lodestar and documentation)? | Plaintiff challenged excessive rates, vague/lumped entries, and billing for unsuccessful work. | Defendants submitted rates and time records supporting their lodestar computations. | Court: Many rates were excessive for the Northern Virginia community and time records suffered lumping/vagueness/duplication; substantial percentage reductions to lodestar applied to each defendant. |
| 4. Are the taxable and non‑taxable costs recoverable as "full costs" under §505? | Humphreys argued many claimed costs (ESI vendor fees, expert prep fees, outside counsel, travel, expedited transcripts, legal research, videography) are not recoverable. | Defendants sought broad recovery of such costs as "full costs" under §505. | Court: §505 does not clearly override 28 U.S.C. §§1821/1920; non‑taxable costs (ESI vendor fees, expert prep, outside counsel, travel, legal research, videography, etc.) denied. Taxable costs allowed only as consistent with §§1821/1920 and reduced where related to unsuccessful counterclaim or lacking invoices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (adopted an evenhanded discretionary approach to awarding fees under §505)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) (lodestar method and fee applicant’s burden)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (2001) (definition of "prevailing party")
- Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U.S. 103 (1992) (prevailing-party principles for fee awards)
- Rosciszewski v. Arete Assoc., 1 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 1993) (four guiding factors for §505 fee awards)
- Grissom v. Mills Corp., 549 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2008) (procedures for lodestar calculation in the Fourth Circuit)
- Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, 559 U.S. 542 (2010) (lodestar presumptively reasonable; adjustments rare and must be supported)
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987) (statutory construction limits recovery to costs authorized by other statutes absent clear congressional intent)
- Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc., 790 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2015) (appellate decision affirming summary judgment for defendants)