A recent Law 360 story by Katie Buehler, “’Petition Watch: NLRB GC Authority, Copyright Atty Fees”, reports that Toy maker Hasbro Inc. asked the justices in a Nov. 20 petition to reverse a First Circuit panel's June refusal to award its lawyers $1.9 million in attorney fees after defeating a copyright suit over the Game of Life.  The appellate panel found the copyright claims brought against Hasbro and heirs of the game developer Reuben Klamer were not objectively "unreasonable," and therefore didn't warrant the requested attorney fees under Section 505 of the Copyright Act.

Lorraine Markham, widow of game developer BIll Markham, and her husband's company, Markham Concepts Inc., had sued Hasbro and Klamer's heirs for royalties for the iconic 1960s board game and control of its intellectual property.  The First Circuit panel uses a highly restrictive test to determine whether prevailing parties in copyright lawsuits are entitled to attorney fees and costs, Hasbro argued in its petition.  Unlike the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth and Ninth circuits, the First Circuit views fees as available "only if the plaintiff's position was 'objectively quite weak,'" according to the company's petition.

The Supreme Court should address this circuit split and determine the proper standard for reviewing attorney fee requests under Section 505 of the Copyright Act, Hasbro said.  "The conflict is intractable, and the only resolution is this court's intervention," the company said.  Lorraine Markham and Markham Concepts haven't filed a response to the Hasbro and Klamer high court petition yet.

At the First Circuit, the Markham entities argued against the attorney fee awards by pointing to a Rhode Island federal judge's ruling, which sided with Hasbro and found the game was made on a "work for hire" basis, but also found the claims "objectively reasonable."

The case is Hasbro Inc. et al. v. Markham Concepts Inc. et al., case number 23-565.

A recent Law 360 story by Kelly Lienhard, “Traxcell Asks High Court To Review Atty Fee Fight”, reports that Traxcell Technologies LLC has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up an appeal concerning attorney fees owed to Sprint and Verizon after the telecommunication companies beat its infringement suit, arguing that the alleged "exceptional" litigation conduct occurred before a final ruling.

A  petition for a writ of certiorari from Traxcell, which filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, claimed that the Federal Circuit erred when it affirmed attorney fee awards to units of Sprint Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. based on so-called "baseless" litigation conduct from Traxcell's attorney, William Ramey III of the Houston firm Ramey LLP, as the conduct in question occurred before the court adopted a magistrate judge's ruling.

"It is black letter law that a Magistrate's ruling is not final until approved by a district court.  It was [an] error for the Panel to base its fee award entirely upon rulings that were not final and could not have been final until December 11, 2019," Traxcell said.  "None of the conduct that was found to be "exceptional" under [federal law] occurred after the Magistrate Judge's recommendation was made final on December 11, 2019."

Texas-based Traxcell, which has been accused of being a "patent troll" by groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is on the hook for about $784,000 in fees owed to Sprint and $132,000 in fees owed to Verizon, after the companies won rulings that Traxcell's patent lawsuits were legally frivolous.  AT&T Inc., which had also been named in those lawsuits, did not request any fees, as it ended its litigation with Traxcell back in 2019.  A panel of Federal Circuit judges ruled in July without comment that the lower court was right to order Traxcell to pay legal fees incurred by lawyers for the major telecom firms.

Traxcell is now appealing that decision based on arguments that the Federal Circuit departed from typical proceedings and court precedent by issuing fee awards based on conduct that occurred before U.S. Magistrate Judge Roy Payne's ruling in a separate, but related, case was finalized.

Traxcell is asking the high court to either vacate or reverse the attorney fees granted to both Sprint and Verizon and find that the case was not exceptional.  Verizon and Sprint, the latter now owned by T-Mobile, moved to dismiss the bankruptcy attempt, telling the court that it was filed in bad faith.

A recent Law 360 story by Kelly Lienhard, “’Daiichi Awarded $46M Fees in Cancer Drug Patent Arbitration”, reports that Japanese drugmaker Daiichi Sankyo Ltd. has scored nearly $46 million in fees and costs in an arbitration initiated by rival Seagen in the companies' patent dispute over cancer drug technology after the arbitrator found that the U.S. biotech company did not file its infringement claims within the six-year statute of limitations.  According to documents filed in a federal court in Washington state, Daiichi was awarded $43.7 million in attorney fees, in addition to $1.9 million, plus ¥169,076 — or around $1,145 — in reasonable costs, for a total of just under $45.6 million.

Former Chief U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown Jr. served as an arbitrator in the dispute and sided primarily with Daiichi, with the exception of granting the company a full award for reasonable costs.  The final arbitration award made no changes to the August 2022 interim award, according to court documents, except to address Daiichi's request for attorney fees and costs.

In the interim award, Judge Brown rejected Seagen's arguments that it owned the patents in question since Daiichi had relied on Seagen's proprietary know-how to develop certain improved technology used in the drugs that the Japanese company had then sought to patent.  Judge Brown said in the final award that both Seagen's quiet title and breach of contract claims failed because they were outside the six-year statute of limitations.

According to Judge Brown, Washington state law requires Seagen to have filed its initial demand for arbitration before Oct. 11, 2018.  However, the biotech company didn't file until over a year later, on Nov. 12, 2019.  Judge Brown added that Seagen was unable to show that anything occurred in the case to merit an exception to the statute of limitations.  The judge said there was no evidence showing that Seagen had any procedures in place that would have flagged Daiichi's "improvement IP" and added that Seagen only began investigating Daiichi's new tech developments once it found out the company was likely to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

"The arbitrator is not persuaded that those facts reasonably demonstrate diligence on Seagen's part. … Stated simply, the foregoing landscape does not support an exception to the six-year statute of limitations," Judge Brown said.  However, while Judge Brown found Daiichi to be the prevailing party in arbitration, he partially denied the company's request for reasonable costs.  Daiichi had requested a total award of around $58.1 million, plus ¥3.4 million, according to court documents, while Seagen argued that the award should be at most $10.2 million and ¥169,076.  Judge Brown said he found Daiichi's request reasonable, with the exception of its request to recover a total of $10.2 million and ¥3.3 million, about $22,163, in expenses related to arbitration.

According to the judge, Daiichi's expenses reimbursement request for items like airfare, lodging and meals does not match up with a reasonable understanding of arbitration costs.  Daiichi itself categorized arbitration costs in a March document as funds spent on invoices from the International Centre for Dispute Resolution, Judge Brown said.  Ultimately, Judge Brown ruled that Seagen had to pay Daiichi only $244,500 in arbitration costs.

A recent Law.com story by Allison Dunn, “Judge Rejects Quinn Emanuel’s $1700 Hourly Rate Request, Slashing Fees for Virginia Settlement By Nearly 80%”, reports that a federal judge in Virginia drastically reduced Quinn Emanuel attorneys’ requested fees related to enforcing a $6 million settlement agreement they successfully obtained for a client over a fraud scheme involving the Model Tobacco Building in Richmond, Virginia.  Some of the rates requested by Quinn Emanuel—$1,690 per hour for a lead partner or $1,385 per hour for associates—were unrealistic for the Richmond market in the present case, the court found.

Quinn Emanuel attorneys based out of Washington, D.C., who served as plaintiffs’ counsel, sought prejudgment interest at a rate of 6%, as well as $236,641.18 attorney fees and costs relating to enforcing a $6 million settlement agreement between the plaintiffs, SS Richmond and MK Richmond, against Christopher A. Harrison, the owner and manager of several entities including, The C.A. Harrison Cos., CAH Model Tobacco and the McKenzie Blake Development Co.  Under the settlement agreement, the Harrison defendants were obligated to pay the $6 million payment by June 8, but the plaintiffs maintain that they have failed to do so, according to the district court’s opinion.

The plaintiffs had accused the defendants of “‘a pattern of bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering in an effort to seize control and interest in a project to purchase and refurbish’” the Model Tobacco Building, which previously served as a factory for the United States Tobacco Co.  Harrison’s counsel from midsize firms Mahdavi Bacon Halfhill & Young, as well as Fraim & Fiorella, opposed the plaintiffs’ request.  The defendants argue that the plaintiffs failed to establish the reasonableness for such hourly rates.

The judge agreed in part with the plaintiffs that, in addition to the prejudgment interest, they were also entitled to attorney fees and costs, but Novak also sided with the defendants in finding Quinn Emanuel’s more than $1,000-per-hour rates for both partners and associates in post-settlement motions were ”not reasonable in accordance with the Court’s prior decisions and the Richmond legal market,” the opinion said.  Considering the reasonable rates for attorneys in Richmond with comparable skills, experience, reputation, as well as other factors, Novak reduced Quinn Emanuel’s total fee award to $50,380.

“Our client is focused on the Model Tobacco project.  As to fees, we don’t agree with everything the judge wrote, but Judge Novak obviously took the time to write a thoughtful opinion,” said George R. A. Doumar, an attorney with Mahdavi Bacon, representing the defendants.  “The local market dictates hourly rates awarded, and Quinn Emanuel was seeking rates far higher than I’ve encountered for fee awards in Virginia courts.  The lawyers I see day in and day out are billing at much lower rates.  The judge also seemed to be aware of law firm billing practices such as block billing and multiple reviews, and took that into account.”

Novak concluded that a rate of $650 for the lead partner and $400 for associates was a reasonable rate based 12 factors such as time and labor expended; the novelty and difficulty of the questions raised; the customary fee for like work; the amount in controversy and the results obtained; the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; attorney fee awards in similar cases and more.

“Here, Plaintiffs have failed to rebut the presumption that the hourly rates should be derived from the community in which the court sits. While Plaintiffs argue that this case has factual connections to Washington, D.C., and that the underlying case involved ‘complicated, high-stakes claims in financial fraud and RICO claims,’ … they present no evidence that a local attorney could not have provided competent representation,” Novak wrote, citing Rehabilitation Association of Virginia, Inc. v. Metcalf (1998).  “Because Plaintiffs have not made the requisite showing to apply out-of-town rates, the Court will consider the proper market from which to determine reasonable hourly rates as the market where the Court sits—Richmond, Virginia.”

The plaintiffs failed to file any affidavits from other law firms regarding “the prevailing market rates in Richmond for similar work,” and said Quinn Emanuel proffered no cases concerning fee awards within the district, Novak held.  Additionally, the law firm cited a news article from Law.com publication The American Lawyer titled, “What $1,000 an Hour Gets You in the AM 200 Today.”  The judge, however, said the article didn’t weigh in the law firm’s favor since it “cut against the reasonableness of the Plaintiff’s requested fees.”

In one of the cases cited by the plaintiffs, Proofpoint v. Vade Secure, a 2020 opinion by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the requested hourly rates ranged from $590 to $675 per hour for associates, and $880 to $915 per hour for more senior attorneys, the opinion said.

“Here, in contrast, Plaintiffs charged $1,305 per hour (Paul Henderson) and $1,385 per hour (Nicholas Inns) for the associates who performed most of the work and $1,690 per hour (Keith H. Forst) for the lead partner. … Even after accounting for inflation and the 15 percent discount applied here, Proofpoint does not support the hourly rates requested in this case,” Novak wrote, further concluding no fee would be awarded for paralegal work because the plaintiffs failed to present evidence of the customary rates billed in Richmond.  Novak concluded that the majority of the plaintiffs’ expenses were reasonable and included them in the award, bringing the total to $51,271.86 in fees and costs.

A recent Law 360 story by Daniel Connolh, “US Trustee Moves to Reverse ‘Tainted’ Jackson Walker Fees”, reports that, in the ethics fallout involving former U.S. Bankruptcy Judge David R. Jones of the Southern District of Texas and his undisclosed intimate relationship with a Jackson Walker LLP bankruptcy partner, the federal agency that oversees the bankruptcy court system filed multiple motions to strip millions of dollars in fee awards from the firm.  Writing that "all orders awarding fees and expenses are tainted and should be set aside," the U.S. Trustee's Office for the region that covers the Southern District filed motions to undo fee awards in at least 11 cases, including the bankruptcies of J.C. Penney Co. and Neiman Marcus.

The trustee, Kevin Epstein, cited Jones' cohabitation with Elizabeth Freeman, a former Jackson Walker bankruptcy partner who now leads her own small firm.  The relationship was recently revealed through litigation and media reports, and led to a formal ethics complaint filed Oct. 13 against Jones, who has resigned.  "Judge Jones' secret relationship with Ms. Freeman created an unlevel 'playing field' for every party in interest in every case Jackson Walker had before Judge Jones, including this one, and in Jackson Walker cases mediated by Judge Jones," Epstein wrote in Thursday's motion in the J.C. Penney case.

In the J.C. Penney bankruptcy alone, Judge Jones had signed orders compensating Jackson Walker for its work as debtor's local counsel and awarded about $14,000 in expenses and about $1.1 million in fees, including about $286,000 billed by Freeman, according to a summary compiled by the U.S. Trustee's Office.  The precise dollar amounts of all the proposed fee reversals weren't immediately clear, but one section of Epstein's motion describes the general scope.

"Judge Jones presided over at least 26 cases, and perhaps more, where he awarded Jackson Walker approximately $13 million in compensation and expenses while Ms. Freeman was both a Jackson Walker partner and living with him in an intimate relationship.  This includes approximately $1 million in fees billed by Ms. Freeman herself in 17 of those cases."  The U.S. Trustee's Office has filed proposed orders that call for the previous orders approving Jackson Walker's fees and expenses to be vacated.  If approved, parties would have 120 days to object to Jackson Walker's fees and expenses, and a hearing would take place.

The U.S. Trustee's Office has also moved to block a $1.3 million fee award to Jackson Walker in at least one case — the GWG Holdings Inc. bankruptcy — in which Judge Jones acted not as presiding judge, but as a mediator.  A recent document filed by the trustee highlights several other cases in which Judge Jones acted as mediator, rather than as judge.  Property records show that Judge Jones and Freeman had jointly owned a house in Houston since 2017. Earlier, Freeman had served as Judge Jones' law clerk.

In a previous interview, Wilkinson said the law firm first learned about a potential relationship between Freeman and Jones in March 2021, and took steps including consulting outside ethics counsel.  Wilkinson had forwarded an emailed statement: "Our firm acted in a timely fashion once we learned of this issue, including conducting a full inquiry and consulting independent outside ethics counsel for their guidance.  From the time we first learned of this allegation Ms. Freeman was instructed not to work or bill on any cases before Judge Jones.  We are confident that we acted responsibly."

The U.S. Trustee's recent filings say Jackson Walker didn't act responsibly.  "Notwithstanding Jackson Walker's admitted knowledge of the secret relationship between its partner, Ms. Freeman, and Judge Jones no later than March 2021, Jackson Walker never disclosed that relationship in any pending or subsequently filed case during the following 21 months while Ms. Freeman was a partner — or thereafter when she was working as a Jackson Walker contract attorney on bankruptcy cases after leaving Jackson Walker," Epstein wrote in the motion, which was signed by Millie Aponte Sall, assistant U.S. trustee.

And at least one court document suggests that Freeman was still indirectly participating in cases for Jackson Walker that were pending before Judge Jones after March 2021, by consulting with other attorneys.  A Fifth Circuit ethics complaint said that whether or not Freeman directly participated in a case before Judge Jones, she still stood to gain money.  The U.S. Trustee's Office has filed motions seeking to undo Jackson Walker's fees and expenses in the following cases, all in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas:

J.C. Penney Co. Inc., et al., case number 20-20184
Neiman Marcus Group Ltd. LLC, case number 20-32519
Westmoreland Coal Co. et al., case number 18-35672
Whiting Petroleum Corp., case number 20-32021
Stage Stores Inc., case number 20-32564
Chesapeake Energy Corp., case number 20-33233
Covia Holdings Corp., case number 20-33295
Tug Robert J. Bouchard Corp., case number 20-34758
Mule Sky LLC, case number 20-35561
Seadrill Partners LLC, case number 20-35740
Katerra Inc. et al., case number 21-31861

A recent Law 360 story by Lauren Berg, “Columbia Univ.’s IP Win Grows to $600M With Fees, Interest”, reports that Columbia University and NortonLifeLock Inc. told a Virginia federal judge that...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Rose Krebs, “Software Investor Gets $100K ‘Mootness’ Fee For Attys in Del.”, reports that a vice chancellor in Delaware's Chancery Court has awarded $100,000 in...

Read Full Post

A recent Law.com story by Riley Brennan, “3rd Circ. Clarifies When District Courts Can Award Attorney Fees on Remand”, reports that, in a precedential decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the...

Read Full Post

A recent Law 360 story by Emillie Ruscoe, “Susman Godfrey, Hausfeld Split $22M Fee in Libor Case”, reports that Susman Godfrey LLP and Hausfeld LLP will receive a nearly $22 million fee for...

Read Full Post