Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



3 min read

Fogerty v. Fantasy inc. attorneys fees

copyright infringement attorney fees

In the midst of a copyright infringement dispute between John C. Fogerty and Fantasy, Inc., an intriguing question arises - should prevailing plaintiffs and defendants be treated differently when it comes to awarding attorney's fees? The Court of Appeals upheld the "dual" standard, allowing prevailing plaintiffs to receive attorney's fees as a matter of course, while defendants had to prove that the original suit was frivolous or brought in bad faith. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that both plaintiffs and defendants should be treated equally under § 505, and attorney's fees should only be awarded at the court's discretion.

The Court rejected Fantasy's arguments in favor of the dual standard, emphasizing that the language of § 505 does not support differential treatment. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the goals and objectives of the Copyright Act differ from those of the Civil Rights Act, which does allow for different treatment. Additionally, the Court dismissed Fogerty's argument that § 505 enacted the "British Rule" for automatic recovery of attorney's fees, pointing out that the word "may" in § 505 implies discretion. The Court advised that equitable discretion should be exercised based on the considerations it has identified.

Taking into account the policies underlying the 1909 Copyright Act, which aim to balance competing claims on the public interest, the Court refuted the respondent's argument that the "dual approach" to awarding attorney's fees is necessary to encourage litigation of meritorious claims. The Court argued that the respondent's view is one-sided, as the Copyright Act has multiple goals, including discouraging infringement and fostering creativity. Moreover, the Court contended that defendants should be encouraged to litigate meritorious defenses to establish the boundaries of copyright law. While the respondent argued that the legislative history supports the dual standard, the Court found that there is no settled interpretation of the 1909 Act that Congress could have been aware of. Therefore, the Court firmly rejects the "dual standard" under § 116 of the 1909 Copyright Act, advocating for equal treatment of prevailing plaintiffs and defendants. It asserts that attorney's fees should only be awarded at the court's discretion.

The Court also dismisses the petitioner's contention that § 505 intended to adopt the "British Rule" for automatic attorney's fee recovery. It maintains that the language of § 505 clearly implies discretion, and according to the American Rule, parties generally bear their own attorney's fees. While Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment, he disagrees with the Court's analysis in Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC. Thomas argues that the Court's interpretation of two similar attorney's fee provisions is inconsistent and detracts from the clarity and certainty of the law. He suggests that the Court should acknowledge that Christiansburg mistakenly disregarded statutory language instead of attempting to reconcile the two cases. Despite this disagreement, Thomas concurs in the judgment because he believes that the Court adopts the correct interpretation of the statutory language in this case. He highlights that the language of 17 U.S.C. § 505 does not indicate differential treatment of prevailing plaintiffs and defendants.

Thomas also notes that the use of the word "may" implies that the determination of whether an attorney's fee award is appropriate lies within the discretion of the district courts. He further argues that this conclusion is supported by the full text of § 505, which allows the court to award a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs. While Thomas recognizes the significance of stare decisis in the realm of statutory interpretation, he proposes that the Court should not extend the analysis of Christiansburg to other contexts. In conclusion, the opinion lists the citations for the case. Additionally, the Court considered a study that examined cases involving both prevailing plaintiffs and defendants in copyright infringement cases. The study revealed that the likelihood of receiving a fee award is so uncertain that it does not significantly impact the decision to settle or litigate.

The opinion also references cases where attorney's fees were awarded to prevailing defendants, as well as cases where they were not. Furthermore, the Court evaluated the Second Circuit's "dual standard rule," which treats prevailing plaintiffs and defendants differently when it comes to awarding attorney's fees. The opinion counters this rule, asserting that it is too narrow and does not adequately recognize the important role played by copyright defendants. To conclude, the opinion suggests several nonexclusive factors that courts should consider when awarding attorney's fees to any prevailing party.