Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey (3d Cir. May 5, 2011)

William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey (3d Cir. May 5, 2011)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 34 |Likes:
Published by Andrew Pequignot
Third Circuit addresses prejudgment interest in copyright cases. $19 million indirect profits award did not shock the conscience.
Third Circuit addresses prejudgment interest in copyright cases. $19 million indirect profits award did not shock the conscience.

More info:

Published by: Andrew Pequignot on May 16, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/16/2011

pdf

text

original

 
1
PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT_____________No. 10-2762_____________WILLIAM A. GRAHAM COMPANY,d/b/a THE GRAHAM COMPANYv.THOMAS P. HAUGHEY;USI MIDATLANTIC, INC.,Appellants_____________On Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Eastern District of PennsylvaniaDistrict Court No. 2-05-cv-00612District Judge: The Honorable Harvey Bartle IIIArgued March 22, 2011Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and VAN ANTWERPEN,
Circuit Judges
 (Filed: May 16, 2011)Aleksander J. Goranin
 
2David J. Wolfsohn (Argued)Woodcock Washburn2929 Arch Street12th Floor, Cira CentrePhiladelphia, PA 19104Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr.Ballard Spahr1735 Market Street51st FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellee
 Floyd Abrams (Argued)Cahill, Gordon & Reindel80 Pine StreetNew York, NY 10005Elizabeth S. CampbellThomas E. ZemaitisPepper Hamilton18th & Arch Streets3000 Two Logan SquarePhiladelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellants
 ________________OPINION________________SMITH,
Circuit Judge.
 
 
3Defendants Thomas Haughey and USI MidAtlantic,Inc. appeal a second time from a judgment entered againstthem in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. (Our earlierdecision, to which we will refer as
Graham I 
, is reported at568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir. 2009).)
 
A jury found Haughey and USIliable for surreptitiously infringing the William A. Graham
Company‘s copyrights over the course of more than a decade,and returned a verdict in Graham‘s favor totaling nearly $19
million. To this the District Court added an award of morethan $4.6 million in prejudgment interest. In the defendant
s‘
view, the jury verdict is so large as to shock the judicialconscience, and the prejudgment interest award is contrary tolaw. We disagree with both contentions and will thereforeaffirm.IIn 1991, Haughey left his job with Graham, aninsurance brokerage, for one with USI, a Graham competitor.When he changed employers, Haughey took with him twobinders containing hundreds of pages of text describingvarious types of insurance coverages, exclusions, conditions,and similar matter. These binders had been prepared by
Graham employees and were subject to that firm‘s copyrights.
From July 1992 until 2005, Haughey and the rest of USImade use of these materials in preparing insurance coverageproposals for presentation to their clients. This use of Grah
am‘s
creation constituted a long-running copyrightviolation, though not in the paradigmatic,
―direct,‖
reproduction-and-sale-of-protected-works form. The
infringement was instead ―indirect,‖ in that the defendants
used the copyrighted materials without permission in order tosell their own insurance products. This conduct was hidden

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->