Facts

Plaintiff markets and sells its Paradisio line of bedroom furniture -- which it had designed for it -- among other home furnishings collections. Plaintiff owned various copyrights and patents with respect to its various furniture lines. Specifically, several design aspects were claimed to be infringed by defendant, including plaintiff's LaFrancaise bed and dresser with mirror, and its Paradisio dresser with mirror, bed frame, armoire and nightstand.

Since August 2003, defendant imported, marketed, offered for sale, sold and distributed a furniture set under the collection name "Hercules."

Plaintiff contended defendant infringed upon its designs.

CONTENTIONS:
Amini contended it expends substantial amounts of time and resources to create its unique and original designs. By developing unique and original designs, it gernered a strong and well-respected position in the high-end furniture industry.

Result

Several of Amini's copyrights and design patent covering its furniture were infringed. Infringement was wilful. Statutory damages in the amount of $250,000 were awarded. Owner of defendant company personally liable for $10,000. Defendant's Sonoran bed and dresser with mirror did not infringe plaintiff's LaFrancaise bed or dresser with mirror. Defendant's Hercules bed did not infringe plaintiff's Paradisio bed frame.

Other Information

Amini will seek recovery of attorney's fees, costs and interest. Jury consisted of nine people. According to defendant, in 2004, defendants succeeded in their motion for summary judgment on each of plaintiff's claims. That judgment was appealed and ultimately the decision of the district court was overturned and remanded. On remand, plaintiff demanded in settlement in excess of $1 million, $400,000 of which to reflect attorney's fees incurred in prosecuting the case. Defendant offered to cease selling the allegedly infringing products but rejected that monetary demand as unreasonable. In addition, trial addressed two lines of furniture. The jury ruled in favor of defendants on one line and in favor of plaintiff on the other. Plaintiff's claims of harm in excess of $1 million as a result of copyright infringement were withdrawn at the end of trial, and instead sought statutory damages. According to defendant, the claim of harm in excess of $1 million was withdrawn for lack of corroborating evidence. In post-trial motion, the district court rejected plaintiff's claim for attorney's fees under both copyright and patent law. Further post-trial motions are expected.