Silicon Genesis Corporation v. EV Group E.Thallner GmbH
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04986
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Silicon Genesis v. EV Group, Judge Corley awarded Silicon Genesis $51,162.58 in attorneys’ fees as contempt sanctions.
Silicon Genesis Corporation received a $51,162.58 attorneys’ fee award as monetary contempt sanctions against EV Group E.Thallner GmbH; the court denied the requested travel costs.
What happened
Silicon Genesis Corporation sued EV Group E.Thallner GmbH over royalties under a patent licensing agreement. The court had already held EV Group in contempt for violating a protective order by using confidential emails from the case to start a lawsuit in Austria.
Silicon Genesis requested attorneys’ fees and costs for seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction and for its Austrian representation. EV Group argued that the sanctions should be reduced because it believed it had not violated the protective order.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley awarded Silicon Genesis $51,162.58: $46,400 for Mr. Poe’s work on the temporary restraining order and preliminary-injunction application and $4,762.58 for Austrian representation. The court declined to award travel costs and did not deduct $228.38 for Austrian court filing fees because Silicon Genesis had not requested those fees.
The detailed version
- Silicon Genesis Corporation v. EV Group E.Thallner GmbH · No. 3:22-cv-04986
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Silicon Genesis Corporation (SiGen) sued EV Group E.Thallner GmbH (EVG) for allegedly failing to pay royalties under a patent licensing agreement. In an earlier order, the court granted SiGen’s motion for monetary contempt sanctions after finding that EVG violated the protective order by using confidential emails produced in the litigation to initiate a lawsuit against SiGen in Austria.
SiGen then sought $66,916.59 in monetary sanctions. The request included $57,900 in fees for 57.9 hours spent prosecuting an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, $8,094.28 for Austrian counsel’s preparation to respond to EVG’s Austrian complaint, and $922.31 in out-of-pocket costs.
Attorneys’ Fees
The court applied the lodestar method, which generally calculates fees by multiplying reasonable hours by a reasonable hourly rate. It accepted a $1,000 hourly rate for Mr. Poe’s work. The court reduced that portion of the request by 11.5 hours because it would not award fees for travel to and from the district where Gaw | Poe LLP is based. The resulting award for that work was $46,400.
For Austrian counsel, SiGen identified work by three Wolf Theiss attorneys totaling 21.167 hours. Because the court lacked information about those attorneys’ experience, skill, and reputation, it used a reasonable rate of $300 per hour, reducing the requested amount to $6,350.10. The court then reduced that amount by 25% because SiGen had not provided contemporaneous time records and the description of services did not separate fees by task or category. The resulting award for Austrian representation was $4,762.58.
EVG argued that the sanctions should not include the full amount of SiGen’s fees because EVG believed it had not disseminated SiGen’s confidential or proprietary information when it filed the Austrian lawsuit. The court rejected that argument, explaining that EVG had purposefully revealed confidential material—SiGen’s CEO’s email correspondence—in violation of the protective order.
Costs and Disposition
The court declined to award the requested $922.31 in travel-related costs, including airfare, in-flight Wi-Fi, hotel, transportation, dinner, and parking. The court also declined EVG’s request to deduct $228.38 for Austrian court filing fees because SiGen did not seek those costs.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley awarded SiGen $51,162.58, consisting of $46,400 for Mr. Poe’s prosecution of the temporary restraining order and preliminary-injunction application and $4,762.58 for SiGen’s Austrian representation. The order disposed of Docket Nos. 123, 124, and 125.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.