Opinion ID: 654264
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Willful Conduct

Text: 32 An award [of attorney's fees] is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent abuse of that discretion. Lindy Pen Co., 982 F.2d at 1409. Under section 1117(a), [t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1117(a). While the term 'exceptional' is not defined in the statute, generally a trademark case is exceptional for purposes of an award of attorneys' fees when the infringement is malicious, fraudulent, deliberate or willful. Lindy Pen Co., 982 F.2d at 1409; Sealy, Inc. v. Easy Living, Inc., 743 F.2d 1378, 1384 (9th Cir.1984). 33 The district court found that Terabyte wilfully purchased and sold math coprocessors marked with counterfeit Intel trademarks and product-speed designations. The evidence indicated that Terabyte knew and intentionally bought remarked chips. Terabyte bought 287-10 chips for as little as $166.00 each when Intel would have sold the same chip to its distributor for $187.00. Terabyte had been told at least one way of detecting remarking; it does not appear to have utilized that method. 2 In addition, it purports to be a long-time player in the chip market. It stretches credulity to be told that Terabyte simply could not ascertain when an Intel chip had been covered over and then remarked. Moreover, on at least one occasion, Terabyte received alleged 287-10 chips inside a 287-6 (slower chips) container--an indication that the chips within were remarked 287-6s. Because it knew that it had encountered problems in the past when it purchased its relatively inexpensive products, it should have been particularly sensitive. It was not; it was, at best, insouciant and at worst willful. The district court found the latter. 34 It is true that Terabyte officers testified at trial that they were not aware of and could not detect counterfeit chips. They argued that they tried to inspect the math coprocessors and that their reliance on the integrity of their sources was reasonable. Nevertheless, substantial evidence contradicted their testimony and [d]etermining the weight and credibility of the evidence is the special province of the trier of fact. Inwood Lab., 456 U.S. at 856, 102 S.Ct. at 2189. 3 Given the special deference owed to the district court's factual findings, the record supports a determination that Terabyte acted deliberately and willfully. See Sealy, Inc., 743 F.2d at 1384. The district court did not abuse its discretion.