Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`No. 22-40072
`_______________________________
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`______________________
`
`BOOKER T. HUFFMAN,
`Plaintiff – Appellee
`v.
`ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INCORPORATED; ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,
`INCORPORATED; MAJOR LEAGUE GAMING CORPORATION;
`TREYARCH CORPORATION,
`Defendants – Appellants
`________________________________
`
`On Appeal from the U.S. District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`No. 2:19-CV-50
`______________________
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLEE
`__________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patrick Zummo
`Law Offices of Patrick Zummo
`950 Echo Lane, Suite 333
`
`Houston, Texas 77024
`
`
`(713) 651-0590
`
`
`
`pzummo@zoomlaw.com
`
`
`Timothy Micah Dortch
`Potts Law Firm, LLP
`2911 Turtle Creek Blvd, Suite 1000
`Dallas, Texas 75219
`(214) 396-9427
`mdortch@potts-law.com
`
`Christopher D. Lindstrom
`
`
`
`Jordan Havard
`Harrison Davis Morrison Jones, P.C. Potts Law Firm, LLP
`850 Park Street
`
`
`
`3737 Buffalo Speedway, Suite 1900
`Beaumont, Texas 77701
`
`Houston, Texas 77098
`(409) 753-0000
`
`
`
`(713) 963-8881
`Jordan@TheTrialLawyers.com
`clindstrom@potts-law.com
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`No. 22-40072
`_______________________________
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`______________________
`
`BOOKER T. HUFFMAN,
`Plaintiff – Appellee
`v.
`ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INCORPORATED; ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,
`INCORPORATED; MAJOR LEAGUE GAMING CORPORATION;
`TREYARCH CORPORATION,
`Defendants – Appellants
`________________________________
`
`On Appeal from the U.S. District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`No. 2:19-CV-50
`______________________
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
`__________________________
`
`The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed persons
`
`
`
`and entities as described in the fourth sentence of Rule 28.2.1 have an interest in the
`
`outcome of this case. These representations are made in order that the judges of this
`
`court may evaluate possible disqualification or recusal.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee:
`
`Booker T. Huffman
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee:
`
`Patrick Zummo: Law Offices of Patrick Zummo
`Timothy Micah Dortch, Christopher D. Lindstrom: Potts Law Firm LLP
`Jordan M. Havard: Harrison Davis Morrison Jones, P.C.
`
`Defendants-Appellants:
`
`Activision Publishing, Inc.
`Activision Blizzard, Inc.
`Major League Gaming Corp.
`Treyarch Corporation
`
`Counsel for Defendants-Appellants:
`
`Edgar Leon Carter, Courtney B. Perez: Carter Arnett PLLC
`Daralyn J. Durie, Andrew Esbenshade, Joseph C. Gratz, Jessica E. Lanier,
`Mark A. Lemley: Durie Tangri LLP
`Harry Lee Gillam, Jr., Bobby Lamb, Melissa R. Smith, James T.
`Underwood: Gillam & Smith, LLP
`
`On January 18, 2022, Microsoft Corporation announced that it had agreed to acquire
`Activision Blizzard,
`Inc. https://news.microsoft.com/2022/01/18/microsoft-to-
`acquire-activision-blizzard-to-bring-the-joy-and-community-of-gaming-to-
`everyone-across-every-device/
`
`
`
`Dated: May 4, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Patrick Zummo
`
` Patrick Zummo
`
`
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee
` Booker T. Huffman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
`
`Appellee Booker T. Huffman does not believe that oral argument will assist
`
`
`
`
`
`the Court. Appellee respectfully contends that the facts and legal arguments are
`
`adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the Court’s decisional process will
`
`not be significantly aided by oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`C.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS ........................................................ i
`STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ............................................. iii
`TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iv
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................. vii
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 2
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ...................................... 2
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2
`I.
`The Facts Underlying the Copyright Infringement Lawsuit. ................ 2
`A.
`Booker T. Huffman and “G. I. Bro.” .......................................... 2
`B.
`Huffman and Activision Attend the Same Comic Book
`Conventions. ............................................................................... 3
`Activision Releases Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 and Uses
`Its “Prophet” Character to Advertise the Game. ......................... 3
`D. Huffman Learns of Activision’s Prophet Character. .................. 4
`The Copyright Infringement Lawsuit. ................................................... 5
`A.
`Pretrial Motions and Discovery. ................................................. 5
`B.
`The Trial. ..................................................................................... 7
`C.
`Activision Moves for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. ...................... 8
`D.
`The Final Judgment and Notices by Both Sides of
`Appeals. ....................................................................................... 9
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 9
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................11
`I.
`Legal Standards for Awarding Attorney’s Fees Under the
`Copyright Act. .....................................................................................11
`A.
`The Fogerty Factors. .................................................................11
`B.
`Standard of Review. ..................................................................12
`
`II.
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`II.
`
`There Is No Presumption in Favor of Awarding Attorney’s
`Fees. .....................................................................................................12
`III. The District Court Did Not Abuse its Discretion. ...............................15
`A.
`The District Court Denied Activision’s Motion After
`Considering All of the Arguments and Explaining Its
`Application of the Fogerty Factors. ..........................................16
`By Considering the Parties’ Arguments and Explaining
`Its Analysis, the District Court Showed the Proper
`Exercise of Its Discretion. .........................................................18
`IV. The District Court Applied the Law to the Evidence and Found
`that Huffman’s Case Was Not Objectively Unreasonable. .................19
`A.
`The Record Shows that Huffman Prevailed on
`Activision’s Dispositive Motions. ............................................20
`The District Court’s Opinions on Activision’s Motions
`Resolved Unsettled Issues of Copyright Law. ..........................23
`Denial of Activision’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion. ....................24
`Denial of Activision’s Venue Motion. ...............................25
`Denial of Activision’s Summary Judgment Motion
`on Non-Infringement. .........................................................25
`Denial of Activision’s Summary Judgment Motion
`on the DMCA. .....................................................................26
`Denial of Activision’s Summary Judgment Motion
`on Nexus. ............................................................................27
`Denial of Activision’s Motion to Strike Huffman’s
`Jury Demand. ......................................................................27
`The District Court Correctly Considered the Effect of
`Its Orders on Unsettled Areas of the Law. .........................27
`The District Court Correctly Found that Huffman’s
`Claims Did Not Become Unreasonable When They Were
`Tried to a Jury. ..........................................................................29
`The Evidence that Required Denial of Activision’s
`Pretrial Motions Was Introduced at Trial. ................................30
`The Evidence of Copying. ..................................................31
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`1.
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`a. The Evidence of Access. .....................................................32
`b. The “Bare Possibility of Access” and the Evidence of
`Striking Similarity. .........................................................33
`c. The Evidence Against Independent Creation. ....................36
`The Evidence that Activision Violated the DMCA. ...........37
`The Evidence of a Nexus Between Activision’s
`Advertising and Its Revenues from Call of Duty:
`Black Ops 4. ........................................................................39
`The District Court Was Within Its Discretion When It
`Found that Huffman’s Claims Were Not Objectively
`Unreasonable. .....................................................................40
`The District Court Considered and Rejected Activision’s
`Arguments on the Remaining Fogerty Factors. ..................................40
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................44
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................45
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................46
`
`
`V.
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Baisden v. I'm Ready Productions, Inc.,
` 693 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 20, 29
`
`Christian v. Mattel, Inc.,
` 286 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2002) .............................................................43
`
`Compaq Computer Corp. v. Ergonome Inc.,
` 387 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2004) ..............................................................22
`
`CoreClarity, Inc. v. Gallup, Inc., No. 4:20-CV-00601,
` 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 214265 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020) ...............15
`
`Creations Unlimited, Inc. v. McCain,
` 112 F.3d 814 (5th Cir. 1997). .............................................................18
`
`Digital Drilling Data Systems, L.L.C. v. Petrolink Services, Inc.,
` 965 F.3d 365 (5th Cir. 2020) ..............................................................12
`
`Energy Intelligence Group, Inc. v. Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P.,
` 948 F.3d 261 (5th Cir. 2020) .............................................................38
`
`Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,
` 510 U.S. 517 (1994) ................................................................... passim
`
`Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC,
` 139 S. Ct. 881 (2019) .........................................................................24
`
`Hacienda Records, LP v. Ramos, No. 2:14-CV-19,
` 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 879 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2019) ....................... 14
`
`Harris Custom Builders, Inc. v. Hoffmeyer,
` 140 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 1998) .............................................................28
`
`Hensley v. Eckerhart,
` 461 U.S. 424 (1983). ................................................................... 11, 44
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 9 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`Hiller, LLC v. Success Group Int'l Learning Alliance LLC,
` 976 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2020) ...............................................................37
`
`Hogan Systems, Inc. v. Cybresource Int’l, Inc.,
` 158 F.3d 3195 (5th Cir. 1998) .............................................................14
`
`Hunn v. Dan Wilson Homes, Inc.,
` 789 F.3d 573 (5th Cir. 2015) ...............................................................22
`
`KB Home v. Antares Homes, Ltd., No. 3:04-CV-1031-L,
` 2008 WL 3906850 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2008)....................................30
`
`Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
` 579 U.S. 197 (2016) ................................................................ 11, 16, 19
`
`Lennar Homes of Texas Sales & Mktg, Ltd. v. Perry Homes, LLC,
` 117 F. Supp. 3d 913 (S.D. Tex. 2015) .......................................... 23, 28
`
`Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.,
` 140 F.3d 70 (1st Cir. 1998) ..................................................................28
`
`Marx v. General Revenue Corp.,
` 568 U.S. 371 (2013) .............................................................................15
`
`McCulloch v. Albert E. Price, Inc.,
` 823 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1987) ...............................................................28
`
`McGaughey v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.,
` 12 F.3d 62 (5th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................13
`
`Official Aviation Guide Co. v. American Aviation Assocs.,
` 162 F.2d 541 (7th Cir. 1947) ...............................................................28
`
`Ortiz. v. Jordan,
` 562 U.S. 180 (2011) .............................................................................40
`
`Peter F. Gaito v. Simone Dev. Co.,
` 602 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2010). .................................................................35
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 10 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,
` 572 U.S. 663 (2014). ..................................................................... 27, 35
`
`Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records, Inc.,
` 394 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2004) ............................................ 13, 18, 20, 29
`
`Randolph v. Dimension Films,
` 634 F. Supp. 2d 779 (S.D. Tex. 2009) .................................................35
`
`Sahuc v. Mohiuddin,
` 166 Fed. App’x 157 (5th Cir. 2006) ....................................................29
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
` 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) .........................................................................25
`
`United States v. Chambliss,
` 948 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2020) ...............................................................17
`
`United States v. Tsarnaev,
` 142 S. Ct. 1024 (2022) .........................................................................17
`
`Virgin Records Am. Inc. v. Thompson,
` 512 F.3d 724, 725 (5th Cir. 2008) .......................................... 12, 13, 18
`
`Virtual Chart Solutions I, Inc. v. Meredith, No. 4:17cv546,
` 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32622 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2020) ...................14
`
`Weeco Int’l, Inc. v. Superior Degassing Services, Inc.,
` No. H-09-4003, 2012 WL 13075401 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2012) ........22
`
`Womack+Hampton Architects, L.L.C. v. Metric Holdings Ltd. P'ship,
` 102 Fed. App’x 374 (5th Cir. 2004) ....................................................43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 11 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
` Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 1202 ..................................................................................... 6, 26, 37, 38
`
`17 U.S.C. § 505 ................................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 32 ....................................................................................................46
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 34 .................................................................................................... iii
`
`Treatise
`
`4 Nimmer on Copyright § 12.10[B][2][b] (Rev. Ed. 2020) .....................................36
`
`4 Nimmer on Copyright § 13D.07[B][2] (Rev. Ed. 2022)………………………...35
`
`4 Nimmer on Copyright § 14.10[D][5][a][iii] (Rev. Ed. 2022) ...............................22
`
`
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 12 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`No. 22-40072
`_______________________________
`
`In the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Fifth Circuit
`______________________
`
`BOOKER T. HUFFMAN,
`Plaintiff – Appellee
`v.
`ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INCORPORATED; ACTIVISION BLIZZARD,
`INCORPORATED; MAJOR LEAGUE GAMING CORPORATION;
`TREYARCH CORPORATION,
`Defendants – Appellants
`________________________________
`
`On Appeal from the U.S. District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`No. 2:19-CV-50
`______________________
`
`BRIEF OF APPELLEE
`__________________________
`
`To the Honorable U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:
`
`
`
`This appeal is from a trial of an action for copyright infringement. The district
`
`court denied four dispositive motions filed by Defendants-Appellants and the case
`
`was tried to a jury. The jury found no infringement after a short trial. Appellants
`
`moved for attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, which allows a court, in its
`
`discretion, to award fees to the prevailing party in a copyright action. The district
`
`court denied the motion after considering the standards set by the United States
`
`Supreme Court. Appellants have not shown that the court abused its discretion.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 13 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`
`Appellee agrees with Appellants’ jurisdictional statement.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
`
`
`Appellee agrees with Appellants’ statement of the issue presented for review.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Plaintiff-Appellee Booker T. Huffman 1 alleged that Defendants-Appellants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Activision Publishing, Inc., Activision Blizzard, Inc., Major League Gaming Corp.,
`
`and Treyarch Corp. 2 infringed his copyrights. Huffman alleged that Activision
`
`copied his artwork depicting a character called “G. I. Bro” to make a videogame
`
`character named “Prophet.”
`
`I. The Facts Underlying the Copyright Infringement Lawsuit.
`
`A. Booker T. Huffman and “G. I. Bro.”
`
`Booker T. Huffman is a professional wrestler. ROA.5257:7 – 5258:19. During
`
`
`
`
`
`
`his career, one of the characters he portrayed in the ring was “G. I. Bro,” a military-
`
`based figure. ROA.5262:1 – 5263:11. As a child, Huffman watched cartoons about
`
`
`1 Plaintiff-Appellee Booker T. Huffman will be referred to as “Huffman,” with one exception.
`Booker T. Huffman retained an independent contractor named Travis Huffman to produce the
`comic books and artwork that Booker T. Huffman registered for copyright protection. To avoid
`confusion they are referred to by full name in the description of the independent contractor
`relationship.
`
` Defendants-Appellants are all related companies and will be referred to collectively as
`“Activision.”
`
` 2
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 14 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`a professional wrestler, and this gave him the idea of being in his own cartoon.
`
`ROA.5264:9 – 5265:4.
`
`
`
`In 2015, Booker T. Huffman retained an independent contractor, Travis
`
`Huffman, who had a small company that created and published comic books and
`
`related artwork. ROA.5265:5 – 5266:18, 5276:25 – 5284:22, 6087-90, 6220-22.
`
`Booker T. Huffman conceived a character like his G. I. Bro wrestling personality
`
`who would be a retired special operations soldier. Working with Booker T. Huffman,
`
`Travis Huffman’s company produced versions of comic books about G. I. Bro along
`
`with artwork used in promotional posters. ROA.5266:19 – 5268:4, 5269:20 –
`
`5276:20, 5983-6010, 6014, 6018-34, 6095-6166, 6174-6217.
`
`B. Huffman and Activision Attend
`Conventions.
`
`the Same Comic Book
`
`Huffman promoted his character and comic books by appearing at comic book
`
`
`
`
`conventions dressed as G. I Bro. ROA.5267:5 – 5268:15, 5285:20 – 5291:9, 7908.
`
`Activision employees attended the same comic book conventions. ROA.5293:19-
`
`23. At Huffman’s booths at these conventions, visitors typically did not identify
`
`themselves as employees of any businesses. ROA.5288:9-15.
`
`C. Activision Releases Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 and Uses Its
`“Prophet” Character to Advertise the Game.
`
`In October 2018, Activision released a new video game titled Call of Duty:
`
`
`
`
`Black Ops 4. ROA.5616:24. The previous game in the series, Call of Duty: Black
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 15 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`Ops III, had a character named David “Prophet” Wilkes, who was enhanced with
`
`“cybernetics.” ROA.5573:2 – 5574:23. Black Ops 4 was a “prequel” set 20 years
`
`before Black Ops III. Activision depicted “Prophet” in Black Ops 4 as he was 20
`
`years earlier in time. ROA.5576:3-20.
`
`
`
`Activision used depictions of Prophet to advertise Call of Duty: Black Ops 4.
`
`ROA.7104:11-7105:9. Activision used Prophet in billboard advertising in October
`
`and November 2018, the weeks surrounding the release of the game on October 12,
`
`2018. ROA.5675:13-25, 7107:12-25, 6558. Billboard advertising was a regular
`
`Activision practice; when it released the next game in the Call of Duty series, the
`
`company did similar billboard advertising. ROA.7115:14-24. 3
`
`
`
`D. Huffman Learns of Activision’s Prophet Character.
`
`Huffman has many social media followers. ROA.5297:18-23. One of his
`
`partners manages his social media. ROA.5297:25 – 5298:7. His partner told him he
`
`needed to look at Activision’s Prophet character. ROA. 5299:17-21, 5300:2-8, 6913.
`
`Huffman believed that it was a copy of his G. I. Bro and found copyright counsel.
`
`ROA. 5300:9 – 5301:7, 6014, 6913.
`
`
`3 Activision also used the Prophet character in the packaging of the “Steelbook” version of its
`game, an edition sold as a physical disk. ROA.7476.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 16 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`II. The Copyright Infringement Lawsuit.
`
`A.
`
`Pretrial Motions and Discovery.
`
`Huffman filed suit on February 12, 2019. ROA.45. Activision responded with
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue and a motion to dismiss for failure
`
`to state a claim. ROA.80, 97. Six lawyers from two law firms were listed on these
`
`motions. ROA.93, 117. An additional lawyer appeared for Activision in July 2019.
`
`ROA.939. Huffman amended his complaint after the Copyright Office granted
`
`additional certificates of registration. ROA.984. The district court denied both
`
`motions to dismiss. ROA.1052, 1089.
`
`
`
`Activision added two more lawyers –one was its new lead counsel -- from a
`
`third law firm on April 6, 2020. ROA.1147-48. Three more lawyers joined its team
`
`over the following months: one in May, ROA.1205, another in June, ROA.1722, and
`
`one more in July. ROA.1826. 4
`
`
`
`In 2020, Huffman moved to overrule certain Activision privilege claims.
`
`ROA.1232. His motion described the more than three months that Huffman tried to
`
`get Activision to produce a usable privilege log. ROA.1232-35. The district court
`
`ordered Activision to produce a document called a “Legal Checklist.” ROA.4969:14
`
`
`4 Three Activision lawyers withdrew before the case went to trial. Its original lead counsel
`withdrew on October 8, 2019. ROA.1047. Another of its original lawyers withdrew on June 8,
`2020. ROA.1725. One of its local counsel withdrew on December 4, 2020. ROA.2152.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 17 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`– ROA.4972:20, 8003-46. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On September 24, 2020, Activision filed three motions for summary
`
`judgment. ROA.6178, 6898, 6922. Eight lawyers were listed on each motion.
`
`ROA.6213-14, 6918, 6941. In October, another lawyer appeared for Activision.
`
`ROA.1955. On November 13, 2020, Activision moved to strike Huffman’s jury
`
`demand. ROA. 1989. On December 14, 2020, the magistrate judge recommended
`
`that all three summary judgment motions be denied, except for one of Huffman’s
`
`claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1202 (“DMCA”).
`
`ROA.2172. Activision added another lawyer in March 2021, bringing its team up
`
`to a total of thirteen lawyers from three firms. ROA.2680. On May 26, 2021, the
`
`district judge adopted the recommendation that the three summary judgment motions
`
`
`5 The “Legal Checklist” was produced as a 44-page printed document, and appeared to be a printout
`of a document originally in a spreadsheet format. ROA.4971:18 – 4972:13.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 18 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`be denied. ROA.2812. The magistrate judge denied Activision’s motion to strike the
`
`jury demand on June 8, 2021. ROA.2827.
`
`B.
`
`The Trial.
`
`The case was tried from Monday, June 21, 2021 through Thursday, June 24,
`
`
`
`
`2021. ROA.2974, 3615. The evidence took a little more than two days. ROA.2978,
`
`3613. Booker T. Huffman testified. ROA.5243:11 – 5455:12. Plaintiff also presented
`
`the testimony of Travis Huffman, ROA.5460:19 – 5520:15, and two of his
`
`contractors. ROA.5521:16 – 5522:3. Plaintiff also presented deposition testimony of
`
`four Activision witnesses. ROA.5456:22 – 5458:24, 5459:10, 5522:20 – 5523:1,
`
`5559:22 – 5560:5. Plaintiff’s case included all of the exhibits and testimony that he
`
`had offered in opposition to the three Activision summary judgment motions.
`
`
`
`At the close of Huffman’s case, Activision moved for judgment as a matter of
`
`law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ROA.3044, 5560:12-13.
`
`The parties agreed that the argument could be presented at the end of that day’s
`
`evidence. ROA.5562:1 – 5563:11. After argument on the motion, ROA. 5792:4 –
`
`5798:21, the district court said that it would not rule on it, and would carry it with
`
`the case. ROA.5802:4-11. 6
`
`
`6 Activision never asked the court to rule on the motion, and did not renew it at the close of the
`case.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 19 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`
`
`Dan Bunting of Treyarch Corporation sat through the trial as Activision’s
`
`corporate representative. ROA.5112:1-12. He was the first witness called in
`
`Activision’s defense. ROA.5564:3-5. He testified about the development of the
`
`Prophet character. ROA.5570:3. Activision elicited his testimony that it had a
`
`process in place to prevent its game developers from improperly using outside
`
`“references” to create game characters. ROA.5576 – 5604:2. Activision then called
`
`three witnesses: one of its contractors, ROA.5676:19 – 5737:25, an expert witness,
`
`ROA.5738.11 – 5770:23, and the actor who portrayed Prophet during a photo shoot.
`
`ROA.5771:8 - 5787:8. Activision rested, and Huffman advised the court that it might
`
`offer deposition testimony from a witness Activision had decided not to call as a live
`
`witness. ROA.5787:23 – 5789:10.
`
`
`
`On the fourth day, the court instructed the jury, ROA.5859:6 – 5880:9, and
`
`the parties presented final argument. ROA.5880:24 – 5922:1. After deliberating for
`
`two hours, ROA.3616, the jury returned a verdict of no infringement. ROA.3644.
`
`C. Activision Moves for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
`
`After trial, Activision moved for its costs, ROA.3680, and then for its
`
`
`
`
`attorney’s fees. ROA.8168. Huffman responded, ROA.8340, and Activision filed a
`
`reply. ROA.3850. The district court held a hearing on both motions. ROA.5931. The
`
`court requested clarification of the cost evidence, ROA.5963:7 – 5965:15, and the
`
`parties filed supplements regarding the cost motion. ROA.3899, 3914.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`
`
`On January 4, 2022, the district court denied the motion for attorney’s fees.
`
`ROA. 3927-34. The court awarded Activision $138,704.39 as costs. ROA.3934-39.
`
`D. The Final Judgment and Notices by Both Sides of Appeals.
`
`The district court entered its final judgment on January 4, 2022. ROA.3940.
`
`
`
`
`Huffman filed his notice of appeal on February 1, 2022. ROA.3948. 7 Activision
`
`filed a notice of appeal of the district court’s denial of its motion for attorney’s fees
`
`on February 3, 2022. ROA.3956.
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`
`The Copyright Act allows a court to award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the
`
`
`
`
`prevailing party. 17 U.S.C. § 505. The fee applicant has the burden to establish
`
`entitlement to an award. The court the court should weigh a nonexclusive list of
`
`factors including (1) frivolousness, (2) motivation, (3) objective unreasonableness,
`
`and (4) the need for compensation and deterrence. The court should give substantial
`
`weight to the objective reasonableness factor.
`
`
`
`Recovery of attorney’s fees is not automatic and is always in the discretion of
`
`the court. There is no presumption that a prevailing defendant is entitled to attorney’s
`
`fees.
`
`
`
`The district court below did not abuse its discretion when it denied
`
`Activision’s motion for attorney’s fees. The district court correctly stated and
`
`
`7 Huffman’s appeal is docketed as No. 22-40067.
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 21 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`followed the law, considered the arguments and evidence of the parties, and
`
`explained the reasons for its decision. In particular, the record supports the district
`
`court’s finding that Huffman’s claims were not objectively unreasonable. The
`
`district court denied multiple dispositive motions filed by Activision and its orders
`
`resolved areas of unsettled law in this Circuit. The district court correctly reasoned
`
`that if Huffman’s claims should not have been dismissed prior to trial, they did not
`
`become objectively unreasonable after they were tried. The district court was within
`
`its discretion when it found that Huffman’s claims were not objectively
`
`unreasonable.
`
`
`
`Activision’s arguments that Huffman did not present evidence on elements of
`
`his claims at trial is not consistent with the record. The district court properly denied
`
`Activision’s dispositive motions on these elements after considering the evidence
`
`that Huffman offered in response to the motions. Huffman presented the same
`
`evidence on these elements during the trial.
`
`
`
`The district court also correctly found that Activision’s arguments on the
`
`factors of compensation, deterrence and motivation were based on Activision’s
`
`position that Huffman’s claims were objectively unreasonable. The record before
`
`the district court supports this conclusion. The district court was within its discretion
`
`when it found that the compensation, deterrence and motivation factors did not
`
`weigh in favor of an award of attorney’s fees to Activision.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 22-40072 Document: 00516332194 Page: 22 Date Filed: 05/25/2022
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. Legal Standards for Awarding Attorney’s Fees Under the Copyright
`Act.
`
`The Copyright Act allows a court “in its discretion” to “award a reasonable
`
`
`
`
`
`
`attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.” 17 U.S.C. § 505. A fee
`
`applicant “bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award….” ….” Hensley
`
`v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 437 (1983).
`
`A. The Fogerty Factors.
`
`The United States Supreme Court set standards for an award of attorney’s fees
`
`
`
`
`under § 505 in Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994) and Kirtsaeng v. John
`
`Wiley & Sons, Inc., 579 U.S. 197 (2016). Attorney's fee awards to prevailing parties
`
`in copyright infringement actions are decided on a case-by-case basis. Fogert