Supreme Court Takes Oracle Copyright Case, but Not the One You Think
Nope, not Oracle v. Google. Instead the high court will use Rimini Street v. Oracle to resolve a circuit split over nontaxable costs in copyright cases.
September 27, 2018 at 03:49 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court has chosen an expensive battle between Oracle Corp. and third-party software support company Rimini Street Inc. to resolve a circuit split over cost-shifting in copyright cases.
The court granted Rimini Street and CEO Seth Ravin's petition for certiorari, which contends the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit improperly affirmed a $12 million award of nontaxable costs as part of a roughly $75 million award, plus attorneys fees, for Rimini Street's copyright infringement.
Rimini and a Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher team led by partner Mark Perry argued in their petition for certiorari that only the taxable costs outlined in 28 USC 1920 and 1821—which include transcript fees, printing costs and reimbursement for court-appointed experts—should be allowed.
“In the Ninth Circuit, an unbounded set of 'nontaxable' costs is available, exemplified here by a $12 million award of expert witness fees, consulting fees, and other costs not permitted by statute,” the petition stated.
The Ninth Circuit has awarded nontaxable costs in copyright cases since 2005. Judge Richard Tallman reasoned in Twentieth Century Fox v. Enter Distributing that the Copyright Act permits “the recovery of full costs” in copyright cases, as well as attorneys fees. If costs are limited to those permitted in the general costs statute, then the word “full” has no meaning, Tallman wrote. The Ninth Circuit panel that decided Rimini Street said it was “bound by our precedent.”
The Eighth and Eleventh circuits have limited copyright awards to taxable costs. “Section 505 makes no clear reference to witness fees, nor otherwise evinces a clear congressional intent to supersede the limitations imposed by Section 1821,” the Eleventh Circuit held in a per curiam opinion.
A jury found in 2015 that Rimini Street and Ravin infringed Oracle's copyright and violated anti-hacking statutes while performing third party maintenance services for Oracle enterprise software. Jurors awarded $35.6 million for infringement and $14 million for violations of California computer hacking statutes. U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks of Nevada tacked on $28 million in attorney fees, $20 million in costs—including the $12 million in non-taxable costs—and $22 million in post-judgment interest. The Ninth Circuit reversed the computer crimes verdict and threw out that portion of the award. It also instructed Hicks to reconsider the fee award.
Oracle is represented by Boies Schiller & Flexner and Kirkland & Ellis. Kirkland partner Paul Clement is counsel of record.
“This case is the poster child for why Congress gave courts 'discretion' to award prevailing parties in copyright cases their 'full costs,'” they argued to the court. “Petitioners are conspicuously silent as to why the district court exercised its discretion to award both taxable and nontaxable costs (and attorneys' fees) in this case—and understandably so, as both the fact of the award and its size were a direct result of their egregious litigation misconduct.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSEC Official Hints at More Restraint With Industry Bars, Less With Wells Meetings
4 minute readSidley Adds Ex-DOJ Criminal Division Deputy Leader, Paul Hastings Adds REIT Partner, in Latest DC Hiring
3 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250