Real View, LLC. v. 20-20 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
811 F. Supp. 2d 553
D. Mass.2011Background
- This is a copyright dispute over kitchen CAD software between Real View and 20-20 with counterclaims by Zeldin and Perlov.
- Real View sought a declaratory judgment that ProKitchen did not infringe 20-20 Design; 20-20 counterclaimed for infringement.
- The jury found no infringement by Real View’s ProKitchen but awarded damages based solely on Real View’s illegal download of 20-20 Design Version 6.1.
- Real View stipulated to the illegality of the download, leaving damages as the contested issue for the jury.
- The court instructed on damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(b), including hypothetical license fees, saved development costs, price erosion, and infringer’s profits.
- The court remitted the damages to $4,200, the license fee 20-20 charged, and awarded pre-judgment interest at 12% from 2004, denying any larger damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a hypothetical license fee supports the damages award | Real View argues a hypothetical license can measure actual damages | 20-20 contends there was insufficient objective evidence for a reasonable license | Hypothetical license fee insufficient; remittitur to $4,200. |
| Whether saved development costs justify damages | Real View could be liable for saved development costs | No reliable evidence tying saved costs to the infringing use | Saved development costs inadequate; remittitur unchanged. |
| Whether price erosion damages warrant recovery | Price erosion reflects actual damages from infringement | No proven causal link to the illegal download | Price erosion not causally connected to download; remittitur maintained. |
| Whether infringer's profits can support damages | Infringer’s profits attributable to infringement should be recoverable | Link between download and profits too attenuated | Infringer’s profits not a proper basis; remittitur affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- On Davis v. Gap, Inc., 246 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2001) (permissible hypothetical license fee in some contexts)
- Polar Bear Prod., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2004) (need for objective evidence of fair market value)
- Getaped.com, Inc. v. Cangemi, 188 F. Supp. 2d 398 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (insufficient basis for hypothetical license fee where benchmarks lacking)
- Jarvis v. K2, Inc., 486 F.3d 526 (9th Cir. 2007) (illustrates evidence required for hypothetical royalties)
- Hofmann v. O'Brien, 367 Fed. Appx. 439 (4th Cir. 2010) (unduly speculative damages when relying on unrelated values)
- Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994) (burden to prove causation for actual damages)
- MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. GE Consumer & Indus., Inc., 622 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. 2010) (limitations on reasonable royalty calculations)
- Softel, Inc. v. Dragon Med. & Scientific Commc'ns Ltd., 891 F. Supp. 935 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (precedent on saved development costs implications)