Warren Technology, Inc. v. Tutco, LLC, 21-11168

Warren Technology and Tutco LLC are competitors in the unitary heater market; both were implicated in a consumer class action alleging deceptive claims of UL 1995 compliance (Koski), which the district court dismissed.
Koski found that consumers failed to allege manufacturers (like Tutco) made misrepresentations because UL, not the manufacturers, certified compliance.
Warren then sued Tutco under the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) and Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), alleging Tutco misrepresented UL compliance and harmed Warren’s profits; the district court dismissed the suit and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
After prevailing, Tutco sought attorneys’ fees; a magistrate judge recommended fees and the district court (while not adopting every magistrate finding) awarded fees under both the Lanham Act (as an “exceptional case”) and FDUTPA.
Warren appealed the fee award. The Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed both fee awards, concluding the district court applied correct standards and reasonably weighed the circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in finding an "exceptional case" under the Lanham Act and awarding fees	Warren: No binding Eleventh Circuit precedent foreclosed its Lanham Act claim; litigation was not unreasonably conducted; letter to industry insufficient alone	Tutco: Warren’s theory was undermined by Koski and Warren pursued a weak claim and sharp litigation tactics; the letter evidenced litigation strategy	Court: No abuse of discretion — case stood out based on weaknesses, repeated adverse rulings, litigation conduct, and the totality of the circumstances; fee award affirmed
Whether the district court abused its discretion in awarding fees under FDUTPA	Warren: Humane Society factors are neutral or favor Warren; no convincing proof Warren could pay; claims were not groundless and presented legal questions	Tutco: Most Humane Society factors favor awarding fees given litigation history, weak merits, and some evidence of bad faith/groundlessness	Court: No abuse of discretion — district court considered Humane Society factors, reasonably balanced them, and permissibly awarded fees

Koski v. Carrier Corp., 347 F. Supp. 3d 1185 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (dismissal of claims where certification by UL, not manufacturer, was alleged)
Warren Tech., Inc. v. UL LLC, 962 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2020) (appellate decision affirming dismissal of Warren’s claims)
Tobinick v. Novella, 884 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2018) (standard for "exceptional case" under Lanham Act; consider substantive strength and litigation manner)
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 (2014) (Supreme Court standard for awarding attorney fees in "exceptional" patent/Lanham Act contexts)
Humane Soc’y of Broward Cnty., Inc. v. Fla. Humane Soc’y, 951 So. 2d 966 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (enumeration of equitable factors for FDUTPA fee awards)
Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1997) (FDUTPA/family-law equitable analysis cited for fee-factor guidance)
In re Rasbury, 24 F.3d 159 (11th Cir. 1994) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing fee awards)
United States v. Toll, 804 F.3d 1344 (11th Cir. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard)