ZUK V. EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE OF PENNSYLVANIA
103 F.3d 294 (3rd Cir. 1996)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over Rule 11 sanctions and those under Section 1927. Lipman (P1), attorney, challenged an order, which entered sanctions against Zuk (P) and P1 and ordered payment of EPPI's (D) counsel fees after dismissal of P's copyright infringement action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
FACTS: Zuk (P) developed a film of his therapy sessions when he was on the faculty of EPPI (D). D duplicated the films and then made them available for rental from its library. P wrote a book about the films containing the transcripts of the therapy sessions, which P had copyrighted in his name. In 1980, D changed ownership hands and P was furloughed. P then requested that all copies of the film be returned. D ignored that request. Eventually in 1995, P filed a copyright suit alleging that D had infringed his copyright. D moved for dismissal under Rule 12(b). D then informed P of its notice to move for sanctions under Rule 11(c)(1)(A) in that P had failed to conduct an inquiry into the facts. The motion to dismiss was granted as the court found that the copyrighted book afforded no protection to the film and that D owned the films and their use was not an infringement and that in any event P's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. D then filed for attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. Section 505 and then also filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions. The court found that P and his attorney, Lipman (P1), were liable for $15,000 to D for attorney fees. P paid D $6,250 and P1 filed an appeal on the $8,750 balance. (The casebook then details out how the fee shifting could not be awarded under the Copyright Act but must come under Section 1927 and Rule 11).
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
No comments:
Post a Comment