UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

DASSAULT SYSTÈMES,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 8:23-cv-1444-KKM-AEP

LINEAR ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CORP., QUY MINH TANG, DIEU NGUYEN, and AUSTIN MORRIS,

Defendants. /

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Entitlement to Attorney Fees and Expenses. (Doc. 46). Plaintiff initiated this action against Defendants for copyright infringement, circumvention of technological measures, and breach of contract, seeking damages arising from the impermissible use of its protected software (Doc. 1). Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, and on July 8, 2024, a default judgement in favor of Plaintiff on all counts was entered in the amount of $730,000. (Doc. 44). Plaintiff now seeks reimbursement of its attorney’s fees and litigation expenses. (Doc. 46). Local Rule 7.01 prescribes a bifurcated procedure for determining attorney’s fees, noting that “[a] party claiming post-judgment attorney's fees and related non- taxable expenses must obtain an order determining entitlement before providing a a court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party in a copyright action at its discretion.

; see also InDyne, Inc. v. Abacus Tech. Corp.,

(11th Cir. 2014); Dubay v. King, No. 3:17-CV-348-J-20MCR,

, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2021); Caracol Television, S.A. v. Telemundo Television Studios, LLC, No. 18-23443-CIV,

, at *7 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 4, 2022). In deciding whether to award attorney’s fees, courts should consider the following factors: frivolousness, motivation, objective

unreasonableness, and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence. Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,

, 534 n.19 (1994); MiTek Holdings, Inc. v. Arce Eng'g Co.,

(11th Cir. 1999). Here, as evidenced by the entry of default, the litigation was not frivolous but

rather the result of Defendant’s continued impermissible use of Plaintiff’s protected software. Moreover, awarding fees furthers deterrence and provides Plaintiff just compensation for the expenses associated with vindicating its rights. Thus, the weight of the factors falls in favor of awarding fees. See McDermott v. El Sol Media Network, Inc., No. 6:22-CV-999-PGB-DAB,

, at *5 (M.D. Fla.

Feb. 8, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 6:22-CV-999-PGB-DAB,

(M.D. Fla. Feb. 23, 2023) (“Fees and costs of suit are commonly awarded by courts in copyright infringement default cases.”) Accordingly, having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and the filings therein, this Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs expended during the course of this litigation. ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Entitlement to Attorney Fees and Expenses. (Doc. 46) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff shall file a supplemental motion for attorney’s fees and costs that complies with Local Rule 7.01(c). DONE AND ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on this 8th day of August 2024.

Jk J) Lig by / ee Pl] TZ) ANTHONY E. PORCELLI United Sfates Magistrate Judge

cc: Counsel of Record