Opinion ID: 6971608
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Actual Damages in Addition to Profits

Text: Finally, Johnson claims that he should have been awarded actual damages, in addition to Tosch’s profits. Johnson claims that, if not for Tosch’s infringement, he would have earned $35,025.68 ($1.86 million x his normal 3.5% architectural fee, less the $29,966.86 paid by Jones) for his work as an architect, and $259,970.62 ($1.55 million x 14% builder’s fee) for his work as a builder on the Jones house. According to Johnson, therefore, he suffered actual damages in the amount of $294,996.30. The district court, however, found Johnson’s claims to be “wholly speculative.” There is no evidence that Johnson was fired because of Tosch’s infringement. To the contrary, the record shows that Johnson was terminated because he and Jones were unable to agree on a contract. Toseh did not copy Johnson’s drawings until after Johnson had been terminated, which suggests that the infringement had nothing to do with Johnson’s termination by Jones. Johnson argues that Jones would not have terminated him if Toseh and Uznis had not been available, but there is no evidence in the record to support this conclusion, and, in any event, their availability was not dependent on the infringement. The district court was therefore correct to hold that Johnson’s actual damages claims were “wholly speculative.”