Case No. 17-1625, 9th Cir.
Preview by Michelle Divelbiss, Online Editor
In another case involving statutory interpretation of the Copyright Act, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether “full costs” awarded under the Copyright Act include both taxable and non-taxable costs. 17 U.S.C. § 505 (2018).
Petitioner, Rimini Street Inc. (“Rimini”) was found to have “innocently” infringed copyrights held by Respondent Oracle USA Inc. (“Oracle”). See Brief for Petitioners at 2, Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., No. 17-1625 (U.S. filed Nov. 13, 2018). The district court awarded Oracle $4.9 million in taxable costs (later reduced to $3.4 million due to an error) and $12.8 million in non-taxable costs. These non-taxable costs include certain litigation expenses. “Full costs” has historically meant costs between “party and party”—i.e., court and docketing fees, transcript fees, printing and copying fees, etc.—and has excluded non-taxable costs between client and lawyer—i.e., expenses such as the cost of an expert witness. The costs between client and lawyer are considered non-taxable because these costs can only be shifted to the losing party if there is a statute expressly permitting that shift.
Oracle requested more than $17.6 million in non-taxable costs that included fees for expert witnesses, fees for consultants, and e-discovery costs; the district court awarded Oracle more than $12.7 in non-taxable costs. Rimini argues that the Copyright Act limits costs to only taxable costs, citing both the Eighth and Eleven Circuits. Oracle and the district court, however, looked to the Ninth Circuit, which has allowed the award of both taxable and non-taxable costs. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the award. Rimini also notes that costs in patent and trademark cases are limited only to taxable costs and argues that cost recovery in copyright, patent, and trademark cases should be the same.