Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: April 4, 2019
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comIn Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that the award of “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation under 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the Copyright Act, does not expand the categories of expenses that may be awarded as “costs” as enumerated in the general federal cost statute.
Under 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the Copyright Act, a court may allow the recovery of “full costs” by or against any party, other than the United States or its officers, including an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees.
Generally, there are six discrete categories of “taxable costs” that are available to prevailing parties under federal statutory fee-shifting provisions: (1) fees for the clerk and marshal; (2) transcript fees; (3) disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) fees for making copies; (5) docketing fees; and (6) the compensation of court-appointed experts and certain special interpretation services. See 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Another federal statute, Section 1821, delineates witness attendance rates ($40-per-day), as well as per diem rules for witness travel expenses. All other cost categories or amounts in excess of the fixed rates are considered “non-taxable.”
In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle, a computer software developer, sued Rimini, a software maintenance provider, under the Copyright Act. Oracle claimed that Rimini, in the course of providing software support services to Oracle customers, copied Oracle’s software without licensing it.
A jury found for Oracle, determining that Rimini violated the Copyright Act by infringing on various Oracle copyrights. After judgment, the District Court ordered the defendant to pay various amounts of costs and attorneys’ fees, including $12.8 million for litigation expenses, such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting.
Despite the fact that fees for expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting are not included in the six categories of fees delineated in the general federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the $12.8 million award. The Ninth Circuit determined the award was appropriate because the language of the Copyright Act gives federal district courts discretion to award “full costs,” a term that is not confined to the six categories identified above.
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit in a unanimous decision. In coming to its decision, the Court analyzed prior case law interpreting the general federal statutes regarding fee-shifting and defined the meaning of the term “full costs.”
Initially, the Court recognized that while 28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920 created a “default rule” for the awarding of litigation expenses, Congress may, if it deems appropriate, authorize awards beyond the six categories of expenses. The Court cited several cases in which an award of fees beyond the six categories was reversed because the specific fee-shifting provision did not expressly authorize fees beyond the categories set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920. See Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987); Arlington Central Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291, 297 (2006).
The Court concluded that these cases set forth a clear standard: “A statute awarding ‘costs’ will not be construed as authorizing an award of litigation expenses beyond the six categories,” unless there is explicit statutory instruction otherwise. As the Copyright Act does not expressly call for the awarding of fees for expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting, this award cannot stand.
Next, the Court rejected Oracle’s argument that the word “full” authorizes courts to award expenses beyond the costs specified in §§1821 and 1920. As Justice Kavanaugh noted, the term “full” is an adjective that means the complete measure of the noun it modifies. In this case, “full” modifies the term “costs,” which refers to all of the “costs” otherwise available under the federal cost statutes—§§1821 and 1920. Thus, “full costs” only refers to the full measure of fees available within the six categories of fees.
The Court also found no merit to Oracle’s argument that the term “full costs” in the Copyright Act is a historical term of art that encompasses more than the “costs” listed in §§1821 and 1920. Citing the Court’s decision in Crawford Fitting, Justice Kavanaugh explained that courts should not undertake extensive historical excavation to determine the meaning of costs statutes and that §§1821 and 1920 apply regardless of when individual subject-specific costs statutes were enacted.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Nicholas Pellegrino, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
The bankruptcy legal landscape presents both challenges and opportunities for businesses navigating financial distress. Understanding current bankruptcy trends can help businesses make more informed and strategic decisions. Corporate Bankruptcy Filings Trending Upwards Bankruptcy filings continued to trend upwards in 2024. According to statistics released by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, personal and business […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
In December, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced charges against two privately held companies for failing to file a Form D notice, which is generally utilized for exempt securities offerings. Here, the SEC’s enforcement sends a strong message: compliance with regulatory requirements is not optional and failure to comply can have significant consequences. […]
Author: Kenneth C. Oh
On February 14, 2025, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued Memorandum 25-05, “New Process for More Efficient, Effective, Accessible and Transparent Case handling.” The Memorandum rescinds nearly all of the Memoranda issued by his direct predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, setting the […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
If you purchase real property from a foreign person or entity, you may be required to withhold taxes from your payment to the seller under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA). The federal tax law is designed to ensure that foreign sellers pay any applicable capital gains tax on profits realized from […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!