In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., SCOTUS Will Determine the Scope of Available Copyright Costs That May Be Recovered in an Infringement Action
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added another intellectual property case to its docket. In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., the justices will determine the scope of available costs that may be recovered in a copyright infringement action.
The U.S. Copyright Act dictates the fees that a prevailing party can recoup in a copyright infringement suit. Under 17 U.S.C. § 505, a court may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or its officers and may also award a reasonable attorneys’ fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.
Another federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, sets out six discrete categories of “taxable costs” that are available to prevailing parties under federal statutory fee-shifting provisions. They include fees for the clerk and marshal; transcript fees; disbursements for printing and witnesses; fees for making copies; docketing fees; and the compensation of court-appointed experts and certain special interpretation services. Another provision, 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.”
Of course, Congress may expand the universe of recoverable costs via statute. However, prior Supreme Court decisions establish that courts should not presume Congress has done so absent “explicit statutory … authorization.”
Facts of Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. is whether the “full cost” provision of the Copyright Act is limited to “taxable costs,” an issue that has divided the U.S. federal courts of appeal. Two federal appellate courts have held that non-taxable costs are not recoverable under the Copyright Act. For instance, in Pinkham v. Camex, Inc., 84 F.3d 292 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit held that the words “full costs” did not “‘clearly,’ ‘explicitly,’ or ‘plainly,’ evidence congressional intent to treat 17 U.S.C. § 505 costs differently from costs authorized in other statutes.”
The Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in the dispute between Oracle USA Inc. (Oracle) and Rimini Street, Inc. (Rimini). In 2010, Oracle filed suit in federal district court against Rimini, alleging numerous causes of action, ranging from copyright infringement to computer hacking. The jury awarded hypothetical license damages for innocent infringement in the amount of $35,600,000 and damages of just over $14 million for violations of state computer hacking statutes. Post-trial, Oracle sought approximately $20 million in costs, which included more than $12 million in non-taxable costs. Rimini objected to the award of the non-taxable costs, arguing that any costs awarded under the Copyright Act were limited to taxable costs permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821. The district court, however, followed Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the Copyright Act “permits a successful plaintiff to recover all costs incurred in litigation, not just taxable costs authorized by … 28 U.S.C. § 1920.”
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, also largely relying on its prior decision in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entm’t Distrib., 429 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2005). In that case, the appeals court upheld tens of thousands of dollars in non-taxable costs under the Copyright Act, determining that the word “full” in the Copyright Act was “clear evidence of congressional intent that non-taxable costs should be available.”
Issues before the US Supreme Court
On appeal, Rimini argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the precedent established by other federal circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. It is seeking to recoup $12.8 million in litigation costs that were awarded by the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Oracle contends that the term “full costs” means the non-prevailing party must pay the full costs, without exception.
On September 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. The specific question before the Court 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 Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.”
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. The Scarinci Hollenbeck Intellectual Property Group will continue to monitor the case and will post updates as they become available.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Bill Samuels, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
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 […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
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 […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
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.
US Supreme Court Agrees to Tackle Dispute Over Copyright Costs
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., SCOTUS Will Determine the Scope of Available Copyright Costs That May Be Recovered in an Infringement Action
The U.S. Supreme Court recently added another intellectual property case to its docket. In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., the justices will determine the scope of available costs that may be recovered in a copyright infringement action.
The U.S. Copyright Act dictates the fees that a prevailing party can recoup in a copyright infringement suit. Under 17 U.S.C. § 505, a court may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or its officers and may also award a reasonable attorneys’ fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.
Another federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920, sets out six discrete categories of “taxable costs” that are available to prevailing parties under federal statutory fee-shifting provisions. They include fees for the clerk and marshal; transcript fees; disbursements for printing and witnesses; fees for making copies; docketing fees; and the compensation of court-appointed experts and certain special interpretation services. Another provision, 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.”
Of course, Congress may expand the universe of recoverable costs via statute. However, prior Supreme Court decisions establish that courts should not presume Congress has done so absent “explicit statutory … authorization.”
Facts of Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
The issue before the U.S. Supreme Court in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. is whether the “full cost” provision of the Copyright Act is limited to “taxable costs,” an issue that has divided the U.S. federal courts of appeal. Two federal appellate courts have held that non-taxable costs are not recoverable under the Copyright Act. For instance, in Pinkham v. Camex, Inc., 84 F.3d 292 (8th Cir. 1996), the Eighth Circuit held that the words “full costs” did not “‘clearly,’ ‘explicitly,’ or ‘plainly,’ evidence congressional intent to treat 17 U.S.C. § 505 costs differently from costs authorized in other statutes.”
The Ninth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in the dispute between Oracle USA Inc. (Oracle) and Rimini Street, Inc. (Rimini). In 2010, Oracle filed suit in federal district court against Rimini, alleging numerous causes of action, ranging from copyright infringement to computer hacking. The jury awarded hypothetical license damages for innocent infringement in the amount of $35,600,000 and damages of just over $14 million for violations of state computer hacking statutes. Post-trial, Oracle sought approximately $20 million in costs, which included more than $12 million in non-taxable costs. Rimini objected to the award of the non-taxable costs, arguing that any costs awarded under the Copyright Act were limited to taxable costs permitted by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821. The district court, however, followed Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the Copyright Act “permits a successful plaintiff to recover all costs incurred in litigation, not just taxable costs authorized by … 28 U.S.C. § 1920.”
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, also largely relying on its prior decision in Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Entm’t Distrib., 429 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2005). In that case, the appeals court upheld tens of thousands of dollars in non-taxable costs under the Copyright Act, determining that the word “full” in the Copyright Act was “clear evidence of congressional intent that non-taxable costs should be available.”
Issues before the US Supreme Court
On appeal, Rimini argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with the precedent established by other federal circuit courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. It is seeking to recoup $12.8 million in litigation costs that were awarded by the Ninth Circuit. Meanwhile, Oracle contends that the term “full costs” means the non-prevailing party must pay the full costs, without exception.
On September 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. The specific question before the Court 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 Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.”
Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. The Scarinci Hollenbeck Intellectual Property Group will continue to monitor the case and will post updates as they become available.
If you have questions, please contact us
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Bill Samuels, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work at 201-806-3364.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
