Six years later, in August 2011, Rydex and Graco agreed that third parties were violating the patent. Rydex filed a complaint against third parties, but Graco accused Rydex of allowing the third party to continue, use, offer and/or sell allegedly offensive products in violation of the agreement. Graco sent a letter to Rydex saying that Rydex had not complied with the agreement and that the Rydex violation had relieved Graco of more royalties. After receiving Graco`s letter, Rydex filed a complaint against Graco for breach of contract and patent infringement. Graco sought a summary judgment and requested that the Tribunal dismiss Rydex`s infringement action on the grounds that Rydex had, under the agreement, lodged only one infringement appeal. The questions were submitted to a jury that found that Graco violated the licensing agreement by not paying the licence fees until the 2013 patent expired and awarded $313,000 in damages to Rydex. The jury spoke graco 0 dollars for the violations of Rydex already determined by the court as a matter of legal order. Graco asked the regional court to legally renew its judgment and to decide that Rydex was not entitled to damages. However, the regional court refused and found that „although it had legally ruled that Rydex had violated the agreement, it had not made a decision on the essentials,“ and the jury found that Rydex had not substantially violated the agreement.
Both sides have appealed. Assuming that the owner has registered his copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office before the date of the violation (or within three months of the publication of the book), the owner can also recover the legal damage. In the event of an intentional violation, legal damages can be awarded up to $150,000 per injured work. Legal fees in a copyright claim may also be awarded to the dominant party. As a general rule, each party pays its own legal fees in a breach action, unless the agreement provides for something else. The lawyer can also analyze the remedies that would bring the best relief to his client in the event of a dispute. This analysis should include a comparison between the discharge granted to IP claims and the discharge allowing the breach of contract.