Universal Instruments Corporation v. Micro System Engineering, Inc., 3:13-cv-00831

Universal Instruments sued MSEI and MTA for copyright infringement and related New York state claims based on alleged wrongful use of its source code.
After discovery and motions, the case proceeded to a jury trial on breach of contract, trade-secret misappropriation, and copyright claims (against MSEI) and unjust enrichment, unfair competition, trade-secret misappropriation, and copyright claims (against MTA).
The district court granted defendants judgment as a matter of law under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50 and originally awarded defendants $3,008,990.92 in attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505.
Universal appealed the merits ruling (affirmed by the Second Circuit) and separately appealed the fee award; the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the fee award, finding key premises of the district court’s fee rationale erroneous.
Defendants moved again for fees (including fees for defending the Merits Appeal) after the appellate decisions; the district court reconsidered fee factors in light of the Second Circuit’s remand.
The district court denied defendants’ renewed fee motions, concluding the Fees Appeal Decision precluded findings of frivolousness or objective unreasonableness and thus the § 505 factors weigh in Universal’s favor.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants are entitled to attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505 for the litigation	Universal contends its claims had arguable merit and were not frivolous or objectively unreasonable	Defendants contend Universal litigated unreasonably (shifting theories, excessive damages requests, poor legal understanding) and fees are warranted for compensation and deterrence	Denied: appellate decision undermined district court’s prior finding of objective unreasonableness; no frivolousness or improper motive found, so § 505 factors favor Universal
Whether defendants may recover fees expended defending the Merits Appeal	Universal argues appellate-defense fees are not warranted because there is no basis to find frivolous or objectively unreasonable litigation conduct	Defendants argue appellate defense fees are recoverable for the same reasons as district-court fees	Denied: motion for appellate-defense fees relies on the same infirm arguments rejected on remand

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) (district courts have equitable discretion to award fees under § 505)
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1979 (2016) (objective unreasonableness is a significant factor in fee awards)
16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin, 791 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2015) (factors to consider in awarding fees under § 505)
Universal Instruments Corp. v. Micro Sys. Eng’g, Inc., 924 F.3d 32 (2d Cir. 2019) (Merits Appeal Decision affirming JMOL)
Universal Instruments Corp. v. Micro Sys. Eng’g, Inc., [citation="799 F. App'x 43"] (2d Cir. 2020) (Fees Appeal Decision vacating and remanding the district court’s fee award)
We Shall Overcome Found. v. Richmond Org., Inc., 330 F. Supp. 3d 960 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) (definition and explanation of objective unreasonableness)