Case Name: SYNTEK SEMICONDUCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-04
Citations: 240 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 06-15138
Parties: SYNTEK SEMICONDUCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, HUG, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 240
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
SYNTEK SEMICONDUCTOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-15138.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 4, 2007 .
Filed Sept. 4, 2007.
Before: GOODWIN, HUG, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Syntek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. appeals the district court's award of attorneys' fees to Microchip Technology, Inc. ("Microchip") under § 505 of the Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. § 505. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and legal theories of the case, we need not recount them here.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Microchip's request for attorneys' fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. See The Traditional Cat Ass'n., Inc. v. Gilbreath, 840 F.3d 829, 833 n. 4 (9th Cir.2003) (reviewing awards under § 505 for an abuse of discretion, and noting that district courts are given "wide latitude" to make this decision). In granting the request, the district court identified and applied the correct factors for determining whether to award attorneys' fees, and did not clearly err in its findings of fact. See Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n. 19, 114 S.Ct. 1023, 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994) (outlining the non-exclusive factors to consider in making a § 505 award); Gilbreath, 340 F.3d at 833 ("A court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on an inaccurate view of the law or a clearly erroneous finding of fact.").
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.