• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit

Latin American Music Company Acemla Vs. American Society of composers ASCAP (Decided on 21.04.2011)

Copyright Infringement - Attorney fees and costs of judgment challenged - 17 U.S.C. Section 412 - Plaintiff Latin American Music Company (LAMCO) appealed from orders awarding attorneys' fees in favor Defendant American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) - On move for reconsideration by Plaintiff LAMCO court increased total award, including costs - Hence this appeal -

Held, copyright was timely registered - 17 U.S.C. Section 412 did not apply to a Defendant who was successful in defending claims - There was nothing in statute that prohibit fee awards in cases of non infringement - Section 505 permitted courts, in their discretion, to award reasonable attorneys' fees to prevailing party - Court carefully reviewed defendent's documentation and court's rescript, and was satisfied that all aspects of the fee award fall comfortably within the court's discretion - Decision of Lower Court affirmed.

Superior Court of Los Angeles County

The People, Plaintiff and Respondent, Vs. HECTOR GARCIA et al., Defendants and Appellants (Decided on 19.04.2011)

Counterfeiting Registered Trademark - Restitution for Non-Economic Loss - Section 1202.4 - Production of pirated movies and music - Trial Court awarded restitution jointly and severally for each of confiscated DVD's and for items in pay-owe sheets - Appellant raised objection that Trial Court erroneously awarded restitution of wholesale value of confiscated items when there was no economic loss associated with these items - Hence this appeal

Held, allowing restitution for potential lost sales, as measured by number of illicit items Defendant possessed for sale, did not compensate victim for a true loss - Such payments would appear to be simply punitive - Intent of subdivision (r) of Section 1202.4 was to recompense victim's economic loss rather than to punish offenders commensurate with size of their inventory - Potential sales could not be used as a basis for restitution - Hence, Appellants could not be ordered to pay restitution based on their inventory - Portion of restitution awarded for seized merchandise represented potential economic loss and was erroneously included in restitution order - Judgments modified to reduce amount of restitution - In all other respects judgments were affirmed.

• INSURANCE LAW

California Court of Appeal

Liberty national Enterprises, L.P., Plaintiff and Respondent Vs. Chicago title Insurance Company, Defendant and Appellant (Decided on 26.04.2011)

Exclusive ownership challenged - Appellant filed motion to disqualify counsel of Respondent - Appellant contended that counsel had learned confidential information about Appellant's claims policies when he represented Appellant from time to time that he should also be disqualified because he was a witness in case - Trial Court denied motion with reasoning that Appellant provided no explanation for why it waited for two years, after conclusion of a lengthy trial in this case on liability, to move to disqualify Respondent's counsel, a counsel that had represented respondent from inception of this case and Respondent would be extremely prejudiced if counsel were disqualified as he had won liability phase and had been Appellant's long-time counsel throughout events that up to filing of instant case - Hence this appeal

Held, delay in bringing disqualification motion was unreasonable - No citation to record where it might be shown that counsel was actively using that information against Appellant - Even if it was true that Appellant only learned counsel's knowledge of its claim policies in fall of 2009, there was absolutely nothing to suggest that this knowledge was in any way relevant - Deprive Respondent of counsel of his choice at this late stage in proceedings, where no unfair disadvantage to Appellant was indicated, would cause undue hardship to Respondent without serving purpose of disqualification remedy with reason that later the motion was made, the more difficult it was to replace counsel - Replacing counsel midway through such a case was a very dicey proposition, especially after coverage phase of trial - Agreed with Trial Court that prejudice to Liberty would have been extreme if counsel would have been disqualified - Court could not imagine that seasoned Trial Judge in this case did not take into account interests of justice in deciding whether counsel's additional role as a witness disqualified him as Respondent's counsel - Judgment of Trial Court denying motion affirmed.