Boutique Firm Alleges Copyright Infringement Against Winston & Strawn

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading...

The Hsuanyeh Law Group, a Boston-based boutique law firm, has filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement against Winston & Strawn. The suit, filed on December 26, claims that Winston & Strawn’s motion to dismiss bore a “striking resemblance” to the motion filed by the boutique firm. The accusation further asserts that Winston & Strawn copied the motion “nearly verbatim.”

Detailed Allegations

The Hsuanyeh Law Group contends that Winston & Strawn even replicated their introduction without any modification. This legal dispute, now in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, raises serious concerns about intellectual property rights and professional ethics within the legal community.

Timeline of Events

The crux revolves around Rule 12 motions filed by both law firms. The Hsuanyeh Law Group initiated its motion on August 23, aiming to dismiss patent infringement claims brought by Unification Technologies. Intriguingly, Winston & Strawn, representing a co-defendant, submitted a remarkably similar Rule 12 motion the very next day. It is worth noting that the Hsuanyeh Law Group secured copyright protection for their motion on August 30.

  

What

Where

Search Jobs

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Legal Ramifications

The Hsuanyeh Law Group is seeking actual and statutory damages, with a particular emphasis on the statutory damages for copyright infringement, which can reach up to $150,000. The lawsuit underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property in the legal realm and serves as a cautionary tale for law firms reproducing legal documents.

Response from Winston & Strawn

Winston & Strawn’s Assistant General Counsel, Brant C. Weidner, responded to the allegations in a letter dated December 15. While acknowledging the copyright claim, Weidner raised substantive concerns about the validity of the threatened copyright claim. He contended that the claim suffered from “numerous substantive infirmities.” Additionally, Weidner argued that the Hsuanyeh Law Group could only recover damages if the motion were considered “published” before registration, citing that filing through PACER does not constitute publication under copyright law.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Legal Complexities

Weidner elaborated on the legal complexities surrounding copyright infringement, emphasizing that a PACER filing lacks commercial advantage, a crucial criterion for defining publication. He maintained that, at best, the filing represented a “public display” rather than publication. Weidner further asserted that even if statutory damages were applicable, the maximum recoverable amount for non-willful infringement would be capped at $30,000.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.