!

" $%&
'"($&) *$+$&, -./0$ .1 233&+4,
5.0 $%& *&6&"$% -(07/($
____________________
No. 14-1128
LISLII S. KLINGIR,
P|ainiijj-Appc||cc,
t.
CONAN DOYLI ISTATI, LTD.,
Ocjcn!ani-Appc||ani.
____________________

Molion for Avard of Allorneys' Iees in an AeaI
from lhe Uniled Slales Dislricl Courl for lhe
Norlhern Dislricl of IIIinois, Iaslern Division.
No. 13 C 1226 !"#$% '()*+,,-, Cnicj ju!gc.
____________________
SUMITTID }ULY 15, 2014 DICIDID AUGUST 4, 2014
____________________
efore IOSNIR, ILAUM, and MANION, Circuii ju!gcs.
IOSNIR, Circuii ju!gc. This oinion is a sequeI lo K|ingcr
t. Ccnan Ocq|c |siaic, Ii!., 2014 WL 2726187 (7lh Cir. }une 16,
2014), vhere ve heId lhal LesIie KIinger vas enlilIed lo a
decIaralory |udgmenl lhal he vouId nol be infringing coy-
righls on ficlionaI vorks ubIished by Arlhur Conan DoyIe
before 1923 by anlhoIogizing slories vrillen Iong afler
DoyIe's dealh in 1930 lhal fealure SherIock HoImes and olh-
2 No. 14-1128
er characlers deicled in DoyIe's re-1923 ficlion. Iven
lhough lhe modern (osl-DoyIe) SherIock HoImes slories
coy coyrighlabIe maleriaI in lhe re-1923 ficlion, lhe coy-
righls on lhal ficlion, vhich cover coyrighlabIe eIemenls in
il lhal incIude originaI deiclions of characlers (Iike HoImes
and Dr. Walson), have exired. We re|ecled lhe DoyIe es-
lale's argumenl lhal because slories ubIished by DoyIe be-
lveen 1923 and his dealhand sliII under coyrighl
deicled lhose characlers in a more rounded form lhan
found in lhe re-1923 ficlion, lhe fIal characlers of lhe ear-
Iier slories vere rolecled by lhe coyrighls sliII in force on
lhe rounded characlers of lhe Ialer slories.
Once lhe coyrighl on a vork exires, lhe vork becomes
a arl of lhe ubIic domain and can be coied and soId
vilhoul a Iicense from lhe hoIder of lhe exired coyrighl.
So vhen KIinger ubIished his firsl anlhoIogy of modern
SherIock HoImes slories he didn'l lhink he needed a Iicense.
ul lhe DoyIe eslale loId Random House, vhich had agreed
lo ubIish KIinger's book, lhal il vouId have lo ay lhe es-
lale $5,000 for a coyrighl Iicense. Random House yieIded lo
lhe demand, oblained lhe Iicense, and ubIished lhe book.
KIinger arranged for a sequeI lo lhe anlhoIogy lo be ub-
Iished by Iegasus ooks and dislribuled by W.W. Norlon &
Comany lo bookseIIers. When lhe DoyIe eslale Iearned of
lhis ro|ecl, il loId Iegasus, as il had loId Random House,
lhal Iegasus vouId have lo oblain a $5,000 Iicense from lhe
eslale in order lo be IegaIIy aulhorized lo ubIish lhe nev
book. The eslale didn'l exIicilIy lhrealen lo sue Iegasus for
coyrighl infringemenl if lhe ubIisher didn'l oblain a Ii-
cense, bul did exIicilIy lhrealen lo revenl dislribulion of
lhe book. Il did nol mince vords. Il loId Iegasus: If you
No. 14-1128 3
roceed . lo bring oul |lhe sequeIj unIicensed, do nol ex-
ecl lo see il offered for saIe by Amazon, arnes & NobIe,
and simiIar relaiIers. We vork vilh lhose coman|iesj rou-
lineIy lo veed oul unIicensed uses of SherIock HoImes from
lheir offerings, and viII nol hesilale lo do so vilh your book
as veII. There vas aIso a Ialenl lhreal lo sue Iegasus for
coyrighl infringemenl if il ubIished KIinger's book vilh-
oul a Iicense, and lo sue Inlernel service roviders vho dis-
lribuled il. See DigilaI MiIIennium Coyrighl Acl, 17 U.S.C.
512(i)(1)(A). Iegasus yieIded lo lhe lhreal, as Random
House had done, and refused lo ubIish lhe anlhoIogy unliI
KIinger oblained a Iicense from lhe DoyIe eslale.
Inslead of oblaining a Iicense KIinger sued lhe eslale,
seeking decIaralory reIief againsl being ad|udged an infring-
er of any vaIid coyrighls of lhe eslaleand von, bolh in
lhe dislricl courl and, on lhe eslale's aeaI, in lhis courl.
We couId find no basis in slalule or case Iav for exlending a
coyrighl beyond ils exiralion. When a slory faIIs inlo lhe
ubIic domain, slory eIemenlsincIuding characlers cov-
ered by lhe exired coyrighlbecome fair game for foIIov-
on aulhors. There is no ground knovn lo American Iav for
exlending coyrighl roleclion beyond lhe Iimils fixed by
Congress. The eslale's aeaI bordered on lhe quixolic.
Nov KIinger asks us lo order lhe DoyIe eslale lo reim-
burse lhe allorneys' fees he incurred in lhe aeaI, amounl-
ing lo $30,679.93. (He has fiIed a searale elilion for fees
and reIaled cosls incurred in his Iiligalion in lhe dislricl
courl, lolaIing $39,123.44. Thal elilion is nol before us.) The
eslale ooses KIinger's requesl on lhe same hoeIess
grounds lhal il had urged in ils aeaI, bul does nol ques-
4 No. 14-1128
lion lhe amounl of fees as dislincl from KIinger's enlilIemenl
lo an avard of anq amounl of fees in lhis case.
The Coyrighl Acl aulhorizes lhe avard |ofj a reasona-
bIe allorney's fee lo lhe revaiIing arly as arl of lhe cosls.
17 U.S.C. 505. We said in Asscssncni Tccnnc|cgics cj Wisccn-
sin, IIC t. W|||!aia, |nc., 361 I.3d 434, 43637 (7lh Cir. 2004)
(and reaffirmed in Oc|itcrMc! Hc|!ings, IIC t. Scna|icn|ran!,
734 I.3d 616, 62526 (7lh Cir. 2013)) lhal lhe lvo mosl im-
orlanl consideralions in deciding vhelher lo avard fees
are lhe slrenglh of lhe revaiIing arly's case and lhe
amounl of damages or olher reIief lhe arly oblained. If lhe
case vas a loss-u and lhe revaiIing arly oblained gener-
ous damages, or in|unclive reIief of subslanliaI monelary
vaIue, lhere is no urgenl need lo add an avard of allorneys'
fees. ul if al lhe olher exlreme lhe cIaim or defense vas
frivoIous and lhe revaiIing arly oblained no reIief al aII,
lhe case for avarding allorneys' fees is comeIIing (cila-
lions omilled). We said lhal as a consequence of lhe success-
fuI defense of an infringemenl suil lhe defendanl is enlilIed
lo a very slrong resumlion in favor of receiving allor-
neys' fees, in order lo ensure lhal an infringemenl defendanl
does nol abandon a merilorious defense in silualions in
vhich lhe cosl of vindicalion exceeds lhe rivale benefil lo
lhe arly. 361 I.3d al 437. Ior vilhoul lhe rosecl of such
an avard, |an infringemenl defendanlj mighl be forced inlo
a nuisance sellIemenl or delerred aIlogelher from exercising
|ilsj righls. |!.
We're nol aIone in exressing lhese concerns. See Mi-
chaeI }. Meurer, ConlroIIing Oorlunislic and Anli
Comelilive InleIIecluaI Iroerly Liligalion, 44 Bcsicn Cc|-
|cgc I. |ct. 509, 521 (2003). See aIso en Deoorler & Roberl
No. 14-1128 5
Kirk WaIker, Coyrighl IaIse Iosilives, 89 Ncirc Oanc I.
|ct. 319, 343-45 (2013), vhere ve read lhal many ersons or
firms accused of coyrighl infringemenl find lhal il is more
cosl-effeclive lo simIy cailuIale lhan lo fighl, even vhen
lhe aIIeged cIaim is of dubious meril. Coyrighl hoIders, lhe
aulhors exIain, have Iarger olenliaI usides and smaIIer
dovnside risks lo fiIing suil, since if lhey vin lhey oblain
damages bul if lhey Iose lhey don'l have lo ay damages
(aIlhough a Ioss, eseciaIIy if recorded in a ubIished oin-
ion as in lhis case, may make il more difficuIl for lhem lo
Iay lheir exlorlionale game in fulure cases). So coiers or
aIIeged coiers may be induced inlo Iicensing |lhal is, ay-
ing a fee for a Iicense lo reroducej lhe underIying vork,
even if lhis Iicense is unnecessary or conveys non-exislenl
righls." |!. al 345. Deoorler and WaIker (i!. al 345 n. 172)
give lhe examIe of lhe Summy-richard Comany, a sub-
sidiary of Warner Music Grou, vhich receives aroxi-
maleIy $2 miIIion er year in royaIly aymenls for Iicenses
lo lhe song 'Hay irlhday lo You,' desile lhe facl lhal lhe
song is mosl IikeIy in lhe ubIic domain, as argued in Rob-
erl rauneis, Coyrighl and lhe WorId's Mosl IouIar
Song, 56 j. Ccpqrigni Scciciq U.S.A. 335, 33840 (2009).
This case iIIuslrales lhe concerns exressed bolh in lhe
arlicIes ve've |usl ciled and in our oinions in Asscssncni
Tccnnc|cgics and Oc|itcrMc! Hc|!ings. UnIess KIinger is
avarded his allorneys' fees, he viII have Iosl moneylo be
recise, $25,679.93 ($30,679.93 $5,000)in vinning an a-
eaI in vhich lhe defendanl's onIy defense bordered on lhe
frivoIous: a Iyrrhic viclory if ever lhere vas one. Il's irreIe-
vanl lhal in Asscssncni Tccnnc|cgics and Oc|itcrMc! Hc|!ings,
lhe aIIeged infringer vas lhe defendanl, and in lhis case il's
lhe Iainliff, a decIaralory-|udgmenl Iainliff in a coyrighl
6 No. 14-1128
case is in effecl a defendanl ermilled lo reciilale lhe in-
fringemenl suil.
The DoyIe eslale's business slralegy is Iain: charge a
modesl Iicense fee for vhich lhere is no IegaI basis, in lhe
hoe lhal lhe ralionaI vriler or ubIisher asked for lhe fee
viII ay il ralher lhan incur a grealer cosl, in IegaI exenses,
in chaIIenging lhe IegaIily of lhe demand. The slralegy had
vorked vilh Random House, Iegasus vas ready lo knuckIe
under, onIy KIinger (so far as ve knov) resisled. In effecl he
vas a rivale allorney generaI, combaling a disreulabIe
business raclicea form of exlorlionand he is seeking by
lhe resenl molion nol lo oblain a revard bul mereIy lo
avoid a Ioss. He has erformed a ubIic serviceand vilh
subslanliaI risk lo himseIf, for had he Iosl he vouId have
been oul of ockel for lhe $69,803.37 in fees and cosls in-
curred al lhe lriaI and aeIIale IeveIs ($30,679.93 +
$39,123.44). The viIIingness of someone in KIinger's osilion
lo sue ralher lhan ay DoyIe's eslale a modesl Iicense fee is
imorlanl because il in|ecls risk inlo lhe eslale's business
modeI. As a resuIl of Iosing lhe suil, lhe eslale has Iosl ils
cIaim lo ovn coyrighls in characlers in lhe SherIock
HoImes slories ubIished by Arlhur Conan DoyIe before
1923. Ior exosing lhe eslale's unIavfuI business slralegy,
KIinger deserves a revard bul asks onIy lo break even.
We nole finaIIy lhal lhe eslale vas Iaying vilh fire in
asking Amazon and olher bookseIIers lo cooerale vilh il in
enforcing ils nonexislenl coyrighl cIaims againsl KIinger.
Ior il vas enIisling lhose seIIers in a boycoll of a comelilor
of lhe eslale, and boycolls of comelilors vioIale lhe anli-
lrusl Iavs. The usuaI boycoll is of a urchaser by his suIi-
ers, induced by a comelilor of lhe urchaser in order lo
No. 14-1128 7
eIiminale comelilion from lhal urchaser, as in lhe Ieading
case (oId as il is) of |asicrn Siaics |ciai| Iun|cr Oca|crs Assn
t. Uniic! Siaics, 234 U.S. 600 (1914), see aIso jTC Pcirc|cun
Cc. t. Piasa Mcicr |uc|s, |nc., 190 I.3d 775, 77779 (7lh Cir.
1999). This case is differenl, in ils facls bul nol in economic
subslance or IegaI reIevance, because lhe boycollers enIisled
by lhe DoyIe eslale vere buyers from lhe viclim, ralher lhan
seIIers lo il. ul funclionaIIy lhey ucrc suIierssuIiers
of essenliaI dislribulion services lo KIinger.
Il's lime lhe eslale, in ils ovn seIf-inleresl, changed ils
business modeI.
KIinger's molion is granled and lhe DoyIe eslale ordered
lo ay him $30,679.93 for lhe IegaI fees lhal he incurred in
his successfuI defense of lhe dislricl courl's |udgmenl in his
favor.