at 10.Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.: Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for the Court in Rimini, which held that a prevailing copyright litigant is not entitled to a more expansive determination of costs than set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821. As a result, the Court rejected Oracle’s position that it was authorized to receive an award of expenses that included expert witness fees, electronic discovery expenses, and jury consultant fees.
8 million for litigation expenses such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting.Rimini appealed the $12.8 million award to the Ninth Circuit, where the appellate court held that, while 28 U.S.C. §1920 authorizes district courts to award costs in accordance with six specific categories, the award was still appropriate because section 505 of the Copyright Act allows for an award of “full costs,” which Ninth Circuit precedent deemed is not limited to the six categories codified in section 1920. Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 879 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2018).28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920 are general statutes that provide authorization for federal courts to award certain “costs.”
Consent was ruled not to be valid when information about how data would be used for personalizing advertisements could only be located in several different documents. CNIL also faulted Google for pre-selecting the option to consent to the data collection.1/22/2019: Forecasting with Trendlines Forecast future trends with an Excel pivot chart.1/23/2019: CNIL Guide for Processors France’s Commission Nationale Informatique & Libertes (CNIL) has published a guide to assist the processors of personal data comply with the General Data Protection Regulation.1/24/2019: Script to add slip sheets to PDFs of exhibits Script that can be used with PDF Combine to add slip sheets to a set of exhibits.1/25/2019: Action to Extract Pages from Multiple PDFs Extract the same page range from multiple PDFs using a Java script1/26/2019: Third Circuit Rules File Conversion Costs Covered by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 After Voluntary Dismissal A decision finding that costs for converting native files to TIFF images could be taxed under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 even against plaintiffs that voluntarily dismissed to appeal class de-certification.1/27/2019: C.D. Cal. Grants Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Sanctions for Spoliation The Court granted a motion in limine to exclude evidence of sanctions because it, “would be improper to provide an additional remedy, in addition to the sanction awarded by the Magistrate Judge.”1/28/2019: Fix half deleted characters in Excel This problem may come up when you have text enclosed in double quotes.
at 6; "The six categories that a federal court may award as costs are: (1) Fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828 of this title." 28 U.S.C. §1920. In addition, §1821 provides particular reimbursement rates for witnesses' "[p]er diem and mileage" expenses.
Under the general costs statute, Congress specified six categories of litigation expenses that a federal court may award as costs as follows: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case; (3) fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;(4) fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case; (5) docket fees under section 1923 of this title; (6) compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services under section 1828. 28 USC §1920. In addition, §1821 provides reimbursement rates for witnesses’ per diem and mileage expenses.
The Court was careful to point out that the Copyright Act permits preregistration in some cases, but those would be the only circumstances where an action can be commenced prior to a registration issuing.The upshot is that content owners and practitioners should take care to ensure that they register all works. Not only does the law now clearly and ambiguously require it as a prerequisite to enforcing copyrights, pre-infringement registration is the only way to obtain statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.We wrote about the arguments considered by the Court in a previous post, available here.In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., the Court held that a district court’s discretion to award “full costs” does not include discretion to award expert witness fees or other “costs” that are not specifically permitted in 28 U.S.C. §1920. In its case against Rimini Street for copyright infringement, Oracle obtained a $12.
By statute and rule, there is a strong presumption favoring recovery by the prevailing party of its costs — separate and apart from its attorney’s fees. 28 U.S.C. section 1920 (“Section 1920″) provides that “[a] judge or clerk of any court of the United States may tax as costs” the costs expressly identified in subparts (1) through (6). 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
Cost of Creating Produced Duplicates Are Included Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), but Preparatory or Ancillary Costs Associated with Duplication Are Not 13-1036 December 13, 2013 Specht, Kara A. Decision Last Month at the Federal Circuit - January 2014Judges: Dyk, O'Malley (concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part), Taranto (author) [Appealed from: N.D. Ga., Judge Thrash] In CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., No. 13-1036 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 13, 2013), the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statutory provision governing the taxation of costs, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4).
Prevailing Party Required to Provide Adequate Documentation to Recover Costs Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 11-1199 November 23, 2011 Decision Last Month at the Federal Circuit - December 2011Judges: Lourie, Bryson, Dyk (author) [Appealed from: N.D. Cal., Judge Ware] In In re Ricoh Co. Patent Litigation, No. 11-1199 (Fed. Cir.
Ct. Sept. 27, 2018). The question presented is: Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs,” 17 U.S.C. § 505, to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 11th Circuits have held, or whether the Act also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held. Oracle sued Rimini in 2010 for copyright infringement and ultimately received a damages award of $124 million.