Airframe Systems, Inc. v. L-3 Communications

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
Nos. 10-2001; 11-1169
AIRFRAME SYSTEMS, INC.,
f/k/a Airline Software, Inc.,
Plaintiff, Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v.
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION,
Defendant, Appellee/Cross-Appellant,
and
RAYTHEON COMPANY,
Defendant.
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Boudin, and Dyk,* Circuit Judges.
John J. Dabney, with whom Neal E. Minahan, Michael E.
Shanahan, and McDermott Will & Emery LLP were on brief, replacing
Bruce I. Afran, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Adam J. Kessel, with whom Kurt L. Glitzenstein, Jeffrey D.
Weber, and Fish & Richardson P.C. were on brief, for
appellee/cross-appellant.
September 14, 2011
*
Of the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.
DYK, Circuit Judge. In this copyright infringement case,
plaintiff-appellant Airframe Systems, Inc. (“Airframe”) appeals
from a decision of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. The district court granted defendant-
cross-appellant L-3 Communications Corp.’s (“L-3") motion for
summary judgment. L-3 cross-appeals, challenging the court’s
denial of its motion for attorney’s fees. We affirm in both
respects.
I.
In 1979, Airframe began developing proprietary aircraft
maintenance tracking software known as the Airline Resource
Management System (“ARMS”). Since that time, Airframe has
continually modified and expanded the source code of its ARMS
software to create updated versions of the program. “Source code”
is the original version of a computer program that is written in
human-readable words and symbols. Source code must be compiled
into machine-readable “object code” before a computer can read and
execute the software. A program in source code format can be
modified by a computer programmer, whereas a program in object code
format cannot be easily modified.
In July 2003, Airframe registered and deposited with the
United States Copyright Office copies of four versions of its ARMS
source code: (1) an “IBM version,” created and published in 1981
(Reg. No. TX 5-970-284); (2) a “PC version,” created and published
-2-
in 1984 (Reg. No. TX 5-970-282); (3) a “UNIX version,” created and
published in 1988 (Reg. No. TX 5-970-280); and (4) a “2003
version,” created and published in 2003 (Reg. No. TX 5-970-279).
App. to Br. of Appellant, at 267-74. Airframe’s copyright
registrations became effective on April 16, 2004.
Airframe began licensing its ARMS software to L-31 in
1986. L-3's license was limited to the use of ARMS in compiled
object code format. Nonetheless, while performing system
maintenance for L-3 at some time in either 1997 or 1998, Airframe’s
(now former) employee John Stolarz (“Stolarz”) allegedly acted
without Airframe’s authorization and copied some unspecified
version of the ARMS source code files onto L-3’s computer system.
Solarz allegedly used the source code to modify the ARMS software
so that it could run on L-3’s newer computers–-actions not
authorized under L-3’s license.
In August 2003, Airframe’s president Gordon S. Rosen
(“Rosen”) discovered the unspecified version of the ARMS source
code on L-3’s computer system while performing system maintenance.
When Rosen demanded an explanation for why L-3 possessed the source
code, L-3 sent Airframe a letter explaining that the code must have
1
The original 1986 license was actually to E-Systems, Inc.,
one of L-3’s predecessors in interest. E-Systems was acquired by
Raytheon in 1995 and became part of Raytheon’s Aircraft Integration
Systems (“AIS”) division. The assets of Raytheon’s AIS division,
including the license to Airframe’s ARMS software, were acquired by
L-3 in March 2002. For simplicity, we refer to L-3 and all of L-
3’s predecessors in interest as “L-3.”
-3-
been installed by Airframe’s employee Stolarz. L-3 contends that
it then deleted the ARMS source code files from its system at
Rosen’s request.
Following Rosen’s discovery of the ARMS source code in L-
3’s possession, Airframe initiated a series of copyright
infringement actions against L-3 in the Southern District of New
York and the District of Massachusetts.2 This appeal arises from
the third of these actions, which Airframe filed in the District of
Massachusetts in November 2008.
Airframe alleged in the present case that L-3 copied the
ARMS source code to create a replacement aircraft maintenance
program titled “M3.” Airframe contended that L-3 created the M3
program by merely translating the ARMS source code from its
original RPG programming language to the PHP language. Airframe
further alleged that L-3 incorporated other copyrighted elements of
the ARMS software into its M3 program, including proprietary report
formats, menu terms and headings, and the ARMS user interfaces.3
2
See Airframe Sys., Inc. v. L-3 Commc’ns Corp., No. 05-CV-
7638, 2006 WL 2588016 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 6, 2006) (Airframe I)
(dismissing Airframe’s complaint for failure to state a claim); see
also Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 520 F. Supp. 2d 258 (D.
Mass. 2007), aff’d, 601 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2010) (Airframe II)
(finding Airframe’s claims res judicata as to acts of infringement
alleged to have occurred prior to the dismissal of Airframe I).
3
While the action below (Airframe III) was pending in the
District of Massachusetts, Airframe additionally filed an action
against the United States in the United States Court of Federal
Claims (Airframe IV) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(b). In its
complaint, Airframe claimed that the United States was liable for
-4-
L-3 moved for summary judgment, contending that Airframe
had failed to produce sufficient evidence to support a prima facie
case of copyright infringement. In opposing summary judgment,
Airframe relied on the undisputed fact that L-3 had unauthorized
access to some unspecified version of the ARMS source code on its
computer system until at least August 2003. Airframe additionally
offered a single declaration by Rosen--the principal designer of
the ARMS software--in support of its infringement allegations.
Rosen stated that he had examined the allegedly infringing M3
source code and compared it to the most current version of
Airframe’s ARMS source code (the 2009 version). After comparing
about 15 percent of the source code, Rosen reported in his
declaration that the programs shared “almost complete identicality
down to the use of improper hyphenation and misspelled words that
appeared in the original ARMS program.” App. to Br. of Appellant,
at 578. Rosen further reported finding programmers’ comments4 in
copyright infringement on the grounds that (a) the United States
contracted with L-3 to develop a proprietary aviation maintenance
software program; (b) that L-3 made the allegedly infringing M3
program in its capacity as a government contractor and delivered
the M3 program to the United States; and (c) that the United States
has used the accused M3 program without Airframe’s authorization
since June 2006. After the district court granted summary judgment
for L-3 in Airframe III, the United States moved to dismiss the
Airframe IV action on preclusion grounds. The Claims Court heard
oral argument on the motion to dismiss, but it has not yet ruled.
4
In computer programming, a “comment” is an annotation left
in the source code which is ignored by the computer when compiling
and executing the program. Programmers typically leave comments
for explanatory purposes to make the code easier to understand.
-5-
the M3 source code that evidenced copying, including statements
such as “I do not know what this code is used for so I will leave
it here anyway.” Id.L-3 urged that the Rosen declaration was insufficient
because the ARMS source code version which Rosen compared to the M3
program--and which was the only version that Airframe produced
during discovery--was an updated version of the ARMS program
created in 2009. L-3 contended that the updated 2009 version of
the ARMS source code was not registered and was insufficient to
establish the content of the prior source code versions covered by
Airframe’s copyright registrations (including the 1981 IBM version,
the 1984 PC version, the 1988 UNIX version, and the 2003 version).
As such, L-3 argued, Airframe could not prove there was
“substantial similarity” between the M3 source code and the
registered source code that was allegedly infringed.
The district court agreed, and it granted summary
judgment for L-3. The court concluded that Airframe “ha[d] not
produced the relevant source code” and that it was Airframe’s
“burden to prove the [allegedly infringed source] code in its
original form.” Tr. of Mot. Hr’g, Airframe Sys., Inc. v. L-3
Commc’ns Corp., No. 1:08-CV-11940, ECF No. 109, at 4, 8 (D. Mass.
July 21, 2010) (Airframe III). The court further stated that “a
comparison of updated [ARMS] source code [to the allegedly
infringing M3 code] simply as a matter of logic won’t do.” Id. at
-6-
7. Accordingly, the court concluded that Airframe had failed to
establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement.5
Airframe appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
II.
We review the district court’s entry of summary judgment
de novo. Summary judgment is appropriate if the record reveals “no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
On appeal, Airframe almost exclusively argues that the
district court improperly held that its copyright registrations
were invalid for failure to deposit copies of the allegedly
infringed source code with the Copyright Office. But the district
court did not find Airframe’s copyright registrations invalid. The
court focused solely on the issue of whether Airframe had produced
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of copyright
infringement. See Airframe Sys., No. 1:08-CV-11940, ECF No. 109.
While we might properly affirm the district court because of
Airframe’s failure to address the issue actually decided below, we
5
Because Airframe voluntarily dismissed its complaint in
Airframe II, which alleged that L-3 infringed by modifying ARMS to
run on its new computers, 601 F.3d at 14, the district court also
ruled that Airframe’s claim was res judicata as to infringing acts
prior to the dismissal of Airframe II. See Tr. of Mot. Hr’g,
Airframe Sys., Inc. v. L-3 Commc’ns Corp., No. 1:08-CV-11940, ECF
No. 31 (D. Mass. July 23, 2009). Airframe has not appealed this
ruling.
-7-
think the best course is to address the merits of the district
court’s summary judgment decision. In doing so, some understanding
of the structure of the Copyright Act is necessary.
While “registration is not a condition of copyright
protection,” 17 U.S.C. § 408(a),6 the Copyright Act makes
registration a precondition to filing a valid copyright
infringement claim under the federal statute, id. § 411. Although
the Supreme Court in Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 130 S. Ct.
1237 (2010), recently held that the Copyright Act’s registration
requirement “does not implicate the subject-matter jurisdiction of
federal courts,” id. at 1248, proof of registration of the
allegedly infringed work remains an “element[] of a cause of
action” for copyright infringement, id. at 1243-44.
In addition to the registration requirement, a plaintiff
alleging copyright infringement has the burden of proving two
elements: “(1) ownership of a valid copyright, and (2) copying of
constituent elements of the work that are original.” Situation
Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. ASP. Consulting LLC, 560 F.3d 53, 58 (1st Cir.
2009) (quoting Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499
U.S. 340, 360 (1991)). We focus solely on the element of copying.
6
Copyright registration may be obtained “[a]t any time during
the subsistence of the first term of the copyright in any published
or unpublished work in which the copyright was secured before
January 1, 1978.” Id. § 408(a).
-8-
The element of “copying” itself involves a bifurcated
inquiry, because all “copying does not invariably constitute
copyright infringement.” Johnson v. Gordon, 409 F.3d 12, 18 (1st
Cir. 2005); see also Coquico, Inc. v. Rodriguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d
62, 66 (1st Cir. 2009). To establish actionable copying for the
purposes of copyright infringement, the plaintiff must prove both:
“(a) that the defendant actually copied the work as a factual
matter,” and “(b) that the defendant’s copying of the copyrighted
material was so extensive that it rendered the infringing and
copyrighted works ‘substantially similar.’” Situation Mgmt., 560
F.3d at 58 (quoting T-Peg, Inc. v. Vt. Timber Works, Inc., 459 F.3d
97, 108 (1st Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Proof
of “[b]oth species of copying [is] essential for the plaintiff to
prevail.” 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright
§ 13.01[B], at 13-10 (2011). In other words, “[n]ot all ‘factual’
copying constitutes legally actionable copyright infringement”; the
actual copying must be extensive enough to render the works
“substantially similar.” Creations Unlimited, Inc. v. McCain, 112
F.3d 814, 816 (5th Cir. 2003). “Conversely, even when two works
are substantially similar with respect to protectable expression,
if the defendant did not copy as a factual matter, but instead
independently created the work at issue, then infringement
liability must be denied.” 4 Nimmer & Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright
§ 13.01[B], at 13-10.
-9-
Substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and
the allegedly infringing work “is assessed by comparing the
protected elements of the plaintiff’s work as a whole against the
defendant’s work.” Situation Mgmt., 560 F.3d at 59. The fact
finder gauges this element by applying the “ordinary observer”
test, under which substantial similarity is found “if a reasonable,
ordinary observer, upon examination of the two works, would
‘conclude that the defendant unlawfully appropriated the
plaintiff’s protectable expression.’” T-Peg, Inc., 459 F.3d at 112(quoting Johnson, 409 F.3d at 18).7 However, before the foregoing
comparison can take place, the plaintiff must necessarily establish
the content of the copyrighted work that it contends was infringed.
Thus, to survive summary judgment in the present case, Airframe was
required to present sufficient evidence of copying (including
substantial similarity) with respect to at least one of the ARMS
source code versions covered by its copyright registrations.
Here, the only evidence of copying Airframe presented was
Rosen’s declaration. Rosen made no direct comparison between the
7
Where, as here, the copyrighted work involves specialized
subject matter such as a computer program, some courts have held
that the “ordinary observer” is a member of the work’s “intended
audience” who possesses “specialized expertise.” Dawson v. Hinshaw
Music Inc., 905 F.2d 731, 735-36 (4th Cir. 1990); see also Kohus v.
Mariol, 328 F.3d 848, 857 (6th Cir. 2003); Computer Assoc. Int’l,
Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 713 (2d Cir. 1992); Whelan
Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Lab., Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1232-33
(3d Cir. 1986). This court has yet to directly address this issue,
and it is unnecessary to do so here.
-10-
allegedly infringing M3 program and the ARMS source code versions
covered by Airframe’s copyright registrations, as would normally be
done. Rather, he compared the M3 program to the updated 2009
version of the ARMS source code. While this would support a
finding of substantial similarity between the M3 program and
Airframe’s “current” source code (i.e., the 2009 ARMS source code),
there is no claim that the 2009 source code was itself registered
or that the 2009 version is the same as one of Airframe’s earlier
registered versions--the 1981 “IBM version,” 1984 “PC version,” or
1988 “UNIX version.”8 Rosen’s declaration said nothing about
similarities between the 2009 ARMS version and Airframe’s earlier
registered ARMS versions. Indeed, Airframe admits that they are in
fact not the same, because the 2009 source code is a version “that
had been updated by Airframe in the ordinary course of business.”
Appellant’s Br. 15. Having presented no evidence sufficient to
prove the content of its registered source code versions, Airframe
cannot show that any of its registered works is substantially
similar to the allegedly infringing M3 program, and Airframe has
failed to create a genuine issue of material fact as to its claim
of copyright infringement.
8
We do not understand Airframe to be alleging that L-3 copied
the registered “2003 version” of the ARMS source code, Reg. No. TX
5-970-279, as this version was created over five years after L-3
gained unauthorized access to some unspecified version of the ARMS
source code in either 1997 or 1998.
-11-
This court previously addressed this precise issue in
Unistrut Corp. v. Power, 280 F.2d 18 (1st Cir. 1960). In Unistrut,
the plaintiff sought to prove infringement of the 1942 version of
its catalog that it had registered with the Copyright Office, but
the only evidence the plaintiff produced was an unregistered 1943
edition of the catalog “which admittedly contained some,
unspecified, additions.” Id. at 23. Though the “1943 edition
. . . was clearly shown to have been pirated,” the court dismissed
the plaintiff’s case “for want of proof” because the plaintiff had
offered “no proof that the infringed material was contained in the
[allegedly infringed] 1942 edition.” Id.The Fifth Circuit addressed a similar situation in
Bridgmon v. Array Sys. Corp., 325 F.3d 572 (5th Cir. 2003), which
like the present case involved computer source code. Because the
plaintiff had offered no admissible evidence that could prove the
content of his copyrighted source code, the district court found
the evidence “insufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether [the copyrighted and accused programs] are
‘substantially similar.’” Id. at 576. The Fifth Circuit affirmed,
holding that the plaintiff’s “failure to adduce evidence to allow
a comparison between the [copyrighted source code] and the
allegedly infringing program vitiates his claim.” Id. at 577. The
plaintiff’s failure to produce sufficient evidence to prove the
element of “substantial similarity” was fatal to his infringement
-12-
claim, even though there may have been “evidence of direct
copying.” Id.9
Here, Airframe has produced insufficient evidence to
create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the necessary
element of substantial similarity. As such, we affirm the district
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of L-3.10
9
In Bridgmon, the plaintiff had attempted to offer a
“reconstruction” of his original source code made by his expert,
but the district court excluded the reconstruction under the Best
Evidence Rule. Id. at 576 n.5. The Best Evidence Rule requires
that a party seeking to prove the “content” of a writing must
introduce the “original” or a “duplicate” of the original, unless
it is established that (1) all originals have been lost or
destroyed (absent bad faith by the proponent); (2) the original
cannot be obtained; (3) the original is in the possession of an
opposing party who refuses to produce it; or (4) the writing is not
closely related to a controlling issue. See Fed. R. Evid. 1001-
1004; see also Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., 808 F.2d 1316, 1319 (9th
Cir. 1986) (excluding a “reconstruction” of plaintiff’s allegedly
infringed Star Wars artwork under the Best Evidence Rule, and
further noting: “The dangers of fraud in this situation are clear.
The [Best Evidence Rule] ensure[s] that proof of the infringement
claim consists of the works alleged to be infringed. Otherwise,
‘reconstructions’ which might have no resemblance to the purported
original would suffice as proof for infringement of the
original.”). We note that, if the Best Evidence Rule is satisfied,
evidence other than the original may be sufficient to establish the
content of a copyrighted work. See Data East USA, Inc. v. EPYX,
Inc., 862 F.2d 204, 207 & n.3 (9th Cir. 1988) (evidence sufficient
where plaintiff sought to prove the content of a video game by
offering still photographs of the game being played); Seiler, 808
F.2d at 1319 (noting that plaintiff must “produce the original or
show that it is unavailable through no fault of his own”) (emphasis
added). Airframe has made no effort to satisfy the requirements of
the Best Evidence Rule here.
10
While this case was pending on appeal, Airframe informed
this court that it had filed a motion with the district court
seeking to set aside the court’s judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b). In its Rule 60(b) motion, Airframe informed the district
court that it has since obtained copies of its registered source
-13-
III.
We turn next to L-3’s cross-appeal contending that the
district court erred in denying its motion for attorney’s fees. We
review a district court’s determination regarding attorney’s fees
for abuse of discretion. Spooner v. EEN, Inc., 644 F.3d 62, 66
(1st Cir. 2011). “Apart from mistakes of law–-which always
constitute abuses of a court’s discretion–-we will set aside a fee
[determination] only if it clearly appears that the trial court
ignored a factor deserving significant weight, relied upon an
improper factor, or evaluated all the proper factors (and no
improper ones), but made a serious mistake in weighing them.” Gay
Officers Action League v. Puerto Rico, 247 F.3d 288, 292-93 (1st
Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).
Under the so-called “American Rule,” litigants
customarily bear responsibility for their own legal fees. Alyeska
Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240, 247 (1975).
The Copyright Act, however, creates an exception to this general
rule by providing that a district court, “in its discretion,” may
code deposits from the Copyright Office. Airframe apparently
asserted that its third-party expert and Mr. Rosen concluded that
at least one of Airframe’s registered source code versions is
substantially similar to L-3’s allegedly infringing M3 program.
The district court denied Airframe’s Rule 60(b) motion on August
22, 2011. We express no opinion as to the merits of Airframe’s
failed motion, and we decide the present appeal based solely on the
record before us.
-14-
“award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party” in a
copyright infringement action. 17 U.S.C. § 505.
In Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 521, 534
(1944), the Supreme Court interpreted § 505 as requiring an
“evenhanded” approach under which “[p]revailing plaintiffs and
prevailing defendants are to be treated alike.” The Court
expressly rejected the practice of requiring a showing of
frivolousness or bad faith before a prevailing defendant could be
awarded attorney’s fees. Id. at 531-32. The Court however further
noted that “attorney’s fees are to be awarded to prevailing parties
only as a matter of the court’s discretion.” Id. at 534. While
the Court found there was “no precise rule or formula” for
exercising such discretion, the Court “suggested several
nonexclusive factors” that courts could consider, including:
frivolousness, motivation, objective
unreasonableness (both in the factual and in
the legal components of the case) and the need
in particular circumstances to advance
considerations of compensation and deterrence.
Id. at 534 n.19 (internal citation omitted).
We have interpreted Fogerty as allowing an award of
attorney’s fees to a prevailing party if the opposing party’s
claims are “objectively quite weak.” See Garcia-Goyco v. Law
Envtl. Consultants, Inc., 428 F.3d 14, 20-21 (1st Cir. 2005)
(noting that “this court has applied the Fogerty factors in
affirming awards of attorney’s fees where the plaintiff’s copyright
-15-
claim was neither frivolous nor instituted in bad faith,” but was
“objectively quite weak”); see also Latin Am. Music Co. v. ASCAP,
629 F.3d 262, 263 (1st Cir. 2010); InvesSys, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill
Cos., 369 F.3d 16, 20-21 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding that “dishonesty
is not required for an award [of attorney’s fees]; even a case that
is merely objectively quite weak can warrant such an award”).
L-3 contends that the district court applied an incorrect
attorney’s fees standard. This is not a case like the Supreme
Court’s decision in Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 531-32, or this court’s
decision in Edwards v. Red Farm Studio Co., 109 F.3d 80, 82 (1st
Cir. 1997), where the district court denied fees solely on the
basis that the claim was not frivolous or brought in bad faith.
Rather, the district court here quoted verbatim the factors that
the Supreme Court suggested in Fogerty, and, as the Supreme Court
recommended, it considered other factors as well. See Order,
Airframe Sys., Inc. v. L-3 Commc’ns Corp., No. 1:08-CV-11940, ECF
No. 122, at 1-2 (D. Mass. Feb. 8, 2011) (quoting Fogerty, 510 U.S.
at 534 n.19). L-3 nonetheless argues that the court erred because
it “did not cite, discuss, or quote from any of [the First
Circuit’s] precedents” which have interpreted Fogerty as permitting
a district court to award attorney’s fees when the opposing party’s
claims are “objectively quite weak.” Appellee’s Br. 49. We
disagree. This court’s opinions in Garcia-Goyco, 428 F.3d at 20,
InvesSys, 369 F.3d at 20, and Latin Am. Music Co., 629 F.3d at 263,
-16-
applied the Fogerty standard. As such, the district court’s
recitation of the standard as stated by the Supreme Court in
Fogerty was an accurate statement of the law, and the court was not
required to elaborate by citing First Circuit opinions that have
applied the Fogerty standard. We see no reason here to presume
that the district court failed to understand the contours of the
standard that it recited and applied.
L-3 also contends that, even if the district court did
apply the correct standard, the court abused its discretion in
declining to award L-3 attorney’s fees because Airframe’s claims
were in fact “objectively quite weak.” L-3 argues that Airframe’s
claims were “doomed to fail for lack of proof from the outset”
because “Airframe could not meet its burden of proof to show
infringement of [the] copyrighted source code absent evidence of
the source code in question.” Appellee’s Br. 51. However, L-3
ignores two important points.
First, while the Fogerty standard--as interpreted in
Garcia-Goyco and other cases--permits a court to award attorney’s
fees when the opposing party’s claims are objectively weak, it does
not require the court to do so. A district court has discretion to
decline to award attorney’s fees even when the plaintiff’s
copyright infringement case is quite weak.11
11
See Garcia-Goyco, 428 F.3d at 20 (holding that “attorney’s
fees are to be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of
the court’s discretion” and noting that fees have been awarded in
-17-
Second, there has been no showing that the district court
abused its discretion in declining to award L-3 attorney’s fees on
the facts of this case. As this court recently held in Latin
American Music Co. v. ASCAP, 642 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2011):
Our review of a fee award to a prevailing
party is extremely deferential. We will disturb
a ruling under section 505 only if the record
persuades us that the trial court indulged in a
serious lapse in judgment.
Id. at 91 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Here,
the court expressly considered the fact that “Airframe’s claims in
the present case ultimately failed to survive summary judgment due
to a lack of admissible evidence on certain essential elements” of
its infringement claim. Airframe Sys., ECF No. 122, at 2. The
court however went on to apply each of the Fogerty factors and
concluded that, despite the failure of proof issue, there were “no
particular circumstances [that] agitate[d] in favor of compensation
by way of attorney’s fees.” Id. The court did “not consider
Airframe’s claims to have been frivolous, improperly motivated, or
objectively unreasonable,” and it further emphasized that the
“contentious nature” and “reasonably swift resolution” of the case
weighed against a fees award. Id.instances “where the claim was ‘objectively weak’”) (emphasis
added) (citation omitted); see also Latin Am. Music Co., 629 F.3d
at 263 (holding that the Fogerty standard “permits courts, in their
discretion, to award reasonable attorney’s fees” when the
opponent’s claims are “objectively weak”) (emphasis added);
InvesSys, 369 F.3d at 21 (holding that a case that is “objectively
quite weak can warrant [a fees] award”) (emphasis added).
-18-
While a district court may, under some circumstances,
abuse its discretion in declining to award attorney’s fees, see,
e.g., Mag Jewelry Co. v. Cherokee, Inc., 496 F.3d 108, 122-24 (1st
Cir. 2007), each of these cases depends on its own particular
facts. Given the early stage at which the present case was
resolved and the fact that evidence may have been available to
support Airframe’s claim, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion in denying L-3’s motion for attorney’s fees.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm both the district
court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of L-3 and its
order denying L-3’s motion for attorney’s fees.
Affirmed.
No costs.
-19-