JUDGMENT ON SPECIAL VERDICT
(Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a), 58)
JESUS G. BERNAL, District Judge.
This cause came on for trial before the jury on May 8, 2018. Both parties appeared by counsel, and the Court submitted questions to the jury and the jury answered those questions as follows on May 16, 2018:
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
1. Do you find that Plaintiff Anthony California Inc. is the owner of a valid copyright in the Lamp Designs?
Yes No
A. VA 1-938-070 ________ X
(Exhibit 22)
B. VA 1-938-072 X _______
(Exhibit 23)
C. VA 1-938-067 ________ X
(Exhibit 24)
D. VA 1-938-116 X _______
(Exhibit 25)
E. VA 1-938-122 X _______
(Exhibit 26)
F. VA 1-938-118 X _______
(Exhibit 27)
If your answer to any part of question 1 is "yes", then answer question 2-5. If you answered each part of question 1 as "no," proceed directly to page 9.
2. Do you find that Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and/or Interest Plus Investments Limited copied and sold the Lamp Designs in an unauthorized manner?
Yes No
A. VA 1-938-070 ________ X
(Exhibit 22)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Yes No
B. VA 1-938-072 X __________
(Exhibit 23)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Yes No
C. VA 1-938-067 ________ X
(Exhibit 24)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Yes No
D. VA 1-938-116 _________ X
(Exhibit 25)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Yes No
E. VA 1-938-122 X _________
(Exhibit 26)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
X __________ _________
Yes No
F. VA 1-938-118 ________ _________
(Exhibit 27)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Proceed to question 3.
3. If you answered "Willful," Non-willful," or "Innocent" to any Lamp Design in question 2, what is the amount of statutory damages that Plaintiff Anthony California, Inc. is entitled to recover from Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and/or Interest Plus Investments Limited? Note: The statutory range for damages are as follows:
— Willful infringement: $750-$150,000 per Lamp Design
— Non-willful infringement: $750-$30,000 per Lamp Design
— Innocent infringement: $200-$30,000 per Lamp Design.
Fire Power New Bright Interest Plus
Amount: Amount: Amount:
A. VA 1-938-070 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 22)
B. VA 1-938-072 $7,576.18 $7,576.18 $7,576.18
(Exhibit 23)
C. VA 1-938-067 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 24)
D. VA 1-938-116 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 25)
E. VA 1-938-122 $7,576.18 $7,576.18 $7,576.18
(Exhibit 26)
F. VA 1-938-118 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 27)
Total $ 45,457.08
Proceed to question 4.
4. Do you find that Chien Tsai Tsai and/or Chien Ho Tsai copied and sold the Lamp Designs in an unauthorized manner?
Yes No
A. VA 1-938-070 __________ X
(Exhibit 22)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Yes No
B. VA 1-938-072 X __________
(Exhibit 23)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
X __________ _________
Yes No
C. VA 1-938-067 ________ _________
(Exhibit 24)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Yes No
D. VA 1-938-116 ________ X
(Exhibit 25)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Yes No
E. VA 1-938-122 X _________
(Exhibit 26)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
X __________ _________
Yes No
F. VA 1-938-118 ________ X
(Exhibit 27)
If yes, was it Willful Non-willful Innocent
_______ __________ _________
Proceed to question 5.
5. If you answered "Willful," Non-willful," or "Innocent" to any Lamp Design in question 2, what is the amount of statutory damages that Plaintiff Anthony California, Inc. is entitled to recover from Chien Tsai Tsai and/or Chien Ho Tsai? Note: The statutory range for damages are as follows:
— Willful infringement: $750-$150,000 per Lamp Design
— Non-willful infringement: $750-$30,000 per Lamp Design
— Innocent infringement: $200-$30,000 per Lamp Design.
Chien Tsai Tsai Chien Ho Tsai
Amount: Amount:
A. VA 1-938-070 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 22)
B. VA 1-938-072 $7,576.18 $7,576.18
(Exhibit 23)
C. VA 1-938-067 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 24)
D. VA 1-938-116 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 25)
E. VA 1-938-122 $7,576.18 $7,576.18
(Exhibit 26)
F. VA 1-938-118 $ 0 $ 0
(Exhibit 27)
Total $30,304.72
MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRET
1. Was Anthony California, Inc. the owner of confidential customer, inventory, sales, pricing, and product data (collectively "Confidential Information") housed on Anthony California's secure website via unique login identification numbers?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 1 is "yes," then answer question 2. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 12.
2. Was this Confidential Information secret at the time of the alleged misappropriation?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 2 is "yes," then answer question 3. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 12.
3. Did this Confidential Information have actual or potential independent economic value because they were secret?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 3 is "yes," then answer question 4. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 12.
4. Did Anthony California, Inc. make reasonable efforts under the circumstances to keep the Confidential Information secret?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 4 is "yes," then answer question 5. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 12.
5. Did Defendants acquire, use or disclose the trade secrets by improper means?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 5 is "yes," then answer question 6. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 12.
6. Was Defendants' improper acquisition, use, or disclosure of the Confidential Information a substantial factor in causing Anthony California, Inc. harm?
X Yes X No
If your answer to question 6 is "yes," then answer question 7. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 12.
7. Did Defendants act willfully and maliciously so as to justify an award of punitive damages?
X Yes ____________ No
Proceed to question 8.
8. What are ANTHONY CALIFORNIA, INC.'s damages?
• Past economic loss
lost earnings $__________________________________________
lost profits $___________________________________________
other past economic loss $_______________________________
Total Past Economic Damages: $_____________________________
• Future economic loss
lost earnings $__________________________________________
lost profits $___________________________________________
other future economic loss $_____________________________
Total Future Economic Damages: $___________________________
TOTAL $___________________________________________________________
INTENTIONAL INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
1. Did Anthony California, Inc. and 1) American Furniture Warehouse, and/or 2) Raymour & Flanigan have an economic relationship that probably would have resulted in an economic benefit to Anthony California, Inc.?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 1 is "yes," then answer question 2. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 15
2. Did Defendants know of the relationship?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 2 is "yes," then answer question 3. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 15
3. Did Defendants 1) manufacture and sell infringing products and wrongfully deprive Anthony California of its sales, and/or 2) intentionally delay shipment of Anthony California products to disrupt these economic relationships?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 3 is "yes," then answer question 4. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 15.
4. By engaging in this conduct, did Defendants intend to disrupt the relationships or know that disruption of the relationships was certain or substantially certain to occur?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 4 is "yes," then answer question 5. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 15.
5. Was the relationship disrupted?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 5 is "yes," then answer question 6. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 15.
6. Was Defendants' conduct a substantial factor in causing harm to Anthony California, Inc.?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 6 is "yes," then answer question 7. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 15.
7. What are Anthony California, Inc.'s damages?
• Past economic loss
lost earnings $____________________________________________
lost profits $_191,070.68__________________________________
other past economic loss $_________________________________
Total Past Economic Damages: $_191,070.68_______________________
• Future economic loss
lost earnings $____________________________________________
lost profits $_95,535.34___________________________________
other future economic loss$________________________________
Total Future Economic Damages: $_95,535.34______________________
• Past noneconomic loss, including mental suffering: $__________
• Future noneconomic loss, including mental suffering: $________
TOTAL $ 286,606.02
TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY-SIX THOUSAND, SIX HUNDRED AND
SIX AND 02/100 DOLLARS.
BREACH OF CONTRACT: BOOK ACCOUNT
1. Did you find that Anthony California, Inc. and Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Interest Plus Investments Limited Fire Power had financial transactions?
X Yes ____________ No
Proceed to question 2.
2. Did you find that Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Interest Plus Investments Limited kept an account of the debits and credits involved in the transactions?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 2 is "yes," then answer question 3. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 16.
X Yes ____________ No
3. Did you find that Anthony California, Inc. owes Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and/or Interest Plus Investments Limited money on the account?
X Yes ____________ No
If your answer to question 3 is "yes," then answer question 4. If you answered "no," proceed directly to page 16.
4. The amount of money owed by Anthony California, Inc. is: $ 75,761.80
In accordance with the special verdict of the jury and the opinion of the Court,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
1. Plaintiff, Anthony California, Inc., recover the sum of $75,761.80 against Defendants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, Chien Tsai Tsai, and Chien Ho Tsai, as set forth above, for statutory damages for Copyright Infringement;
2. Plaintiff, Anthony California, Inc., recover the sum of $286,606.02 against Defendants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, Chien Tsai Tsai, and Chien Ho Tsai, jointly and severally, as compensatory damages for Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage;
3. Counter-Claimants, Fire Power Co., Ltd., New Bright Jet Lighting (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Interest Plus Investments Limited, recover the sum of $75,761.80 against Counter-Defendant, Anthony California, Inc., as amount owed on open book account;
4. The award of statutory damages for Copyright Infringement and amount owed on open book account shall offset;
5. The sums awarded by this court as compensatory damages bear post-judgment interest from the date this judgment is entered until it is paid; and
6. Plaintiff recover its taxable costs of suit in this matter as taxed by the Clerk under the provisions of Rule 58.
