SUNDAY, AUGUST 28, 2011
PIn March 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff GP’s motion for contempt, finding that Defendant Willis violated a permanent injunction through retail sales of pre-lit Christmas trees that contained lighting systems covered by GP’s patent. The Court awarded Willis to pay sanctions to GP based on the amount of profit attributable to the infringing light strings and stated that it would entertain GP’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. Thereafter, GP submitted an affidavit setting forth the amount of fees incurred in connection with the motion for contempt. Willis filed a response challenging the reasonableness of the requested amounts.
Upon consideration of GP’s request for approximately $94,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and Willis’ specific objections, the Court declined to award certain of the fees and costs, including computer research costs. The Court then reduced the resulting amount by thirty percent, in part because GP’s motion “did not present complex, novel or particularly difficult questions of law or fact,” did not require extensive new drafting, and could have been prepared by a more junior litigator with a lower billing rate.
GP was within its rights to enforce the Preliminary Injunction through its motion for contempt, and it is entitled to recover the fees and costs easonably incurred in so doing. The Court concludes that deducting the specified line items and reducing the remaining sum by thirty percent based on the factors described above yields a reasonable amount of costs and fees properly recoverable by GP. (Page 21.)