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
© 2024 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 AllHolland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
3 minute read'There Is No Time to Waste': Matt Gaetz Withdraws From AG Nomination
3 minute readRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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