<b>Attorney-Fee Ruling</b> Copyright Litigation

The Manhattan federal district court decided: 'It appears that Ninox was principally motivated to bring this suit not by issues arising directly under the Copyright Act, but by a mistaken but genuine belief that Fox had tortiously interfered with Ninox's contract rights. Once in the litigation, Ninox tried to make the litigation more burdensome and expensive for Fox, but those efforts were largely unsuccessful. Over Ninox's objections, Fox won a stay of discovery and the right to bring an early summary judgment motion. Much of the cost and burden of litigation rested on Fox's licensor, who undertook the Australian Action. '

'[A]ny litigation is burdensome and expensive, and this [New York] litigation is no exception. That said, the cost of litigation was controlled through Fox's successful litigation strategy. That strategy limited expenditures and ultimately produced Ninox's agreement to dismiss the action with prejudice. Although Ninox's copyright claim is frivolous under prevailing law, because this litigation would have applied copyright principles to a relatively new field of intellectual property, format licensing, as a matter of discretion, the Court will refrain from awarding attorney's fees.'