In a second important decision,Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle, Inc., the Court resolved a circuit split over the definition of “full costs” in Section 505 of the Copyright Act. Some lower courts interpreted that provision as only including costs that are available under 28 U.S.C.§§ 1821 and 1920 (such as filing fees, deposition transcription costs, and the like). Other Courts (like the 9th Circuit in Rimini Street) interpreted “full costs” to mean all costs incurred in the suit, including e-discovery costs, expert witness fees, and other big ticket items that are routinely incurred in copyright cases.

In Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the “full costs” the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a party in copyright litigation means the costs specified in the general federal statute authorizing district courts to award costs, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920. While the Court’s decision is only directed toward the Copyright Act, it may have greater ramifications for all “200 subject-specific federal statutes that explicitly authorize the award of costs to prevailing parties in litigation.”

Indeed, the hearings of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held in early June expressed a great variety of viewpoints (e.g., those of technology companies, biotechnology companies and digital rights proponents). As of our publication date in mid-August a promised follow-up version of the proposed bill still has not emerged.SCOTUS: Full Costs in Copyright Cases Limited by General Costs StatuteBy Armen N. Nercessian and Crystal NwaneriIn Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the “full costs” the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a party in copyright litigation means the costs specified in the general federal statute authorizing district courts to award costs, 28U.S.C.§§1821 and 1920. While the Court’s decision is only directed toward the Copyright Act, it may have greater ramifications for all “200 subject-specific federal statutes that explicitly authorize the award of costs to prevailing parties in litigation.”

In March, the United States Supreme Court, in the context of a copyright infringement case, held that a district court could only tax to the losing party those costs specifically authorized under 28 USC §§ 1821 and 1920. The holding negated an award to Oracle of $12.8 million for litigation expenses such as expert witness, eDiscovery and jury consulting fees.

In March, the United States Supreme Court, in the context of a copyright infringement case, held that a district court could only tax to the losing party those costs specifically authorized under 28 USC §§ 1821 and 1920. The holding negated an award to Oracle of $12.8 million for litigation expenses such as expert witness, eDiscovery and jury consulting fees.

The Supreme Court reversed a $12.8 million award to Oracle USA, Inc. (“Oracle”), finding that the phrase “full costs” in section 505 of the Copyright Act encompasses only the costs outlined in the general costs statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 17-1625 (S. Ct. March 4, 2019).Oracle develops and licenses software programs and offers software maintenance services.

The US Supreme Court also interpreted the meaning of “full costs” as used in 17 U.S.C § 505. The Court determined that Section 505 has no special, expansive meaning, but is limited to the costs specified in the general costs statutes codified at 28 USC §§ 1821 and 1920. Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. (IP Update Vol. 22, No. 3).The Copyright Act allows for the recovery of “full costs” by or against any party, other than the United States or an officer thereof.

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the term “full costs” in 17 USC § 505 of the Copyright Act has no special, expansive meaning, but is limited to the costs specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 USC §§1821 and 1920. Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., Case No. 1625 (US Mar. 4.

8 million for “costs” such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting. Oracle’s claim for these broad-ranging costs was that the Copyright Act awarded “full costs” under 17 U.S.C. § 505, and that “full costs” must have a more expansive meaning than the “costs” typically awarded in other statutes and governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920. These “costs” are generally the costs of the court for handling the case and costs of witnesses traveling to court for trial — not a party’s out-of-pocket litigation expenses.

In Depth On March 4, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., finding that the term “full costs” in 17 USC § 505 of the Copyright Act has no special, expansive meaning, but rather is limited to the costs specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 USC §§1821 and 1920. As Kavanaugh explained, the addition of the adjective “full” to the term “costs” (in the Copyright Act) is not enough to conclude that Congress intended additional costs, beyond those set forth in the general cost statute.