IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—N.D. Cal.: That’s all, folks.: Split ruling on extra attorney fees in cartoon case, (Apr 29, 2026)

By Joe Cox, J.D.

The court awarded most of the fees incurred in judgment enforcement but declined to award fees incurred in the appeal of the original decision.

On April 22, a California district court rendered a split decision on a motion for additional attorney fees in a cartoon-based copyright infringement suit. Moonbug Entertainment Ltd. (Moonbug) had prevailed at trial on 36 of 39 copyright infringement claims against BabyBus Network Technology Co. Ltd. (BabyBus) in a dispute regarding similarities between Moonbug’s CoComelon content, including a character named JJ and content produced by BabyBus that involved a distinctly similar character named JoJo. After some unusual post-judgment activity, Moonbug filed a post-judgment motion for attorney’s fees of $535,155 for fees incurred in defending the appeal by BabyBus and for $315,488 in fees incurred through judgment enforcement (Moonbug Entertainment Ltd. v. Babybus (Fujian) Network Technology Co., Ltd., No. 3:21-cv-06536-EMC (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2026)).

Prior history. In 2023, a jury awarded over $17 million in actual damages and lost profits to Moonbug for 36 counts of copyright infringement by BabyBus. From there, the court also awarded just over $6 million in attorney fees to Moonbug. The decision was rendered in accordance with five Fogerty factors, with the court leaning heavily on Moonbug’s near complete success on the merits and BabyBus adopting an objectively unreasonable overall defense to copyright infringement.

BabyBus filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging the jury instructions, verdict form, and granting of partial summary judgment. The appellate court ruled for Moonbug on all relevant issues. During the appeal, the trial court granted a temporary stay on the judgment, which ended in May 2024.

Collection on the underlying judgment was very involved, with Moonbug registering notices of levy and moving to assign rights to payments due to BabyBus to it and restraining BabyBus from interfering with collection. BabyBus had initially indicated that it would post a bond, but it did not do so. Meanwhile, Japan BabyBus Co. Ltd. had filed a third-party claim of superior interest on Google as against Moondog but had not told Moonbug. A deposition was held on judgment enforcement, but BabyBus provided a witness who “was not prepared to answer basic questions on the noticed topics.” Moonbug then moved to add Japan BabyBus as a judgment debtor. Moonbug subsequently learned that Amazon had released funds to Japan BabyBus that were subject to the assignment order.

BabyBus still owed $12.2 million of the judgment plus interest as of April 2025 and filed a motion for a stay of the judgment, which was denied. Finally, in June 2025, BabyBus apparently satisfied the judgment.

Ruling on additional fees. While attorney fees are not generally awarded as a matter of course, Moonbug made the argument that the prior consideration of the Fogerty factors justified imposing the additional attorney fees. The trial court disagreed and made a fresh inquiry on those factors in considering the fees incurred on the appeal.

While the factor of success on the merits favored Moonbug, the other factors were found not to support the imposition of additional fees. The court noted that BabyBus limited its appeal to ground on which its position was objectively reasonable. Additionally, a factor of deference was no longer relevant because an existing permanent injunction already prohibited BabyBus from infringing Moonbug’s works. Accordingly, the court denied the motion for an award of additional attorney fees in regard to the appeal.

In regard to the fees for the judgment collection, however, the court reached a different result. The central issue was whether BabyBus’s conduct was routine or objectively unreasonable. The court found that “While BabyBus’ conduct may not rise to the level of evasion that occurred in some other cases, multiple instances of its conduct were unreasonable or evasive.”

That frivolous conduct, in addition to the Moonbug prevailing on the merits, was found sufficient to impose attorney fees, but only to the extent above and beyond routine collection costs. Having reviewed the hours claimed by the attorneys, the court awarded $279,962.75 of the $315,488 sought, finding the sum awarded relevant to “extraordinary collection work.”

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-06536-EMC.

Judge: Chen, E.

Attorneys: Ciara N. Mchale (Tyz Law Group PC) for Moonbug Entertainment Ltd. Aaron H. Perahia (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for Babybus Network Technology Co. Ltd.

Companies: Moonbug Entertainment Ltd.; BabyBus Network Technology Co. Ltd.

Cases: Copyright CaliforniaNews