Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04882/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-04882-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GOLDEN BRIDGE TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF 

TAXATION OF COSTS

(Re: Docket No. 622)

After every trial, there is cleanup work. As part of its post-trial housekeeping, Defendant 

Apple Inc. requests review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs against Plaintiff Golden Bridge 

Technology, Inc. Apple’s motion is GRANTED.

I.

After a nine-day trial in June 2014, the jury found that Apple had not infringed GBT’s 

patent and awarded no damages to GBT, but also found that Apple had not proved its invalidity 

defense. 1 The court entered judgment in favor of Apple,2and Apple sought taxation of costs 

against GBT.

3

 GBT objected to several of the costs4and Apple accordingly waived a portion of 

them.

5

 But GBT objected again,

6

and the Clerk taxed $30,686.13 in costs as follows:

 

1

See Docket No. 548 at 2-3.

2

See Docket No. 609.

3

See Docket No. 611.

4

See Docket No. 612-4.

5

See Docket Nos. 615, 616.

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 8
2

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use 

in the case.

$24,331.07

Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the 

copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case.

$3,911.06

Witness fees $2,444.00

Total $30,686.137

Apple now moves for review and seeks the following costs:

Category Sub-category Clerk’s taxation Total costs sought on 

review

Transcripts Hearing & trial 

transcripts

$24,331.07 $22,251.35

Deposition transcripts $25,351.07

Deposition video 

recordings

$13,763.25

Subtotal $24,331.07 $61.365.67

Category Sub-category Clerk’s taxation Total costs sought on 

review

Witness Fees Witness Fees $2,444.00 $2,444.00

Subtotal $2,444.00 $2,444.00

Category Sub-category Clerk’s taxation Total costs sought on 

review

Exemplification & 

copies

Trial exhibits & 

witness binders

$3,911.06 $60,997.90

Trial graphics $17,617.61

Electronic discovery $44,635.52

Subtotal $3,911.06 $123,251.03

TOTAL $30,686.13 $187,060.708

II.

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338. The parties further 

consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and 

 

6

See Docket No. 620.

7

See Docket No. 621.

8

See Docket No. 622 at 3.

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 8
3

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).9

III.

The court may exercise its discretion to award costs to the prevailing party.10 A party 

“prevails when actual relief on the merits of [its] claim materially alters the legal relationship 

between the parties,”11 and there can only be one prevailing party within the meaning of Rule 

54(d).12 “Determination of the prevailing party is based on the relation of the litigation result to 

the overall objective of the litigation, and not on the count of the number of claims and defenses” 

on which each party succeeded.13 In patent infringement cases, a party that establishes noninfringement and avoids liability may be the prevailing party even though it is unsuccessful on an 

invalidity defense.14 

Whether the Clerk’s taxation of costs was appropriate must be analyzed according to the 

law of the regional circuit.15 In the Ninth Circuit, there is a “strong presumption” in favor of 

awarding costs to the prevailing party.16 By contrast, the burden is on the non-prevailing party to 

show why taxable costs should not be awarded.17 To deny such an award, the district court must 

 

9

See Docket Nos. 256, 257.

10 See Manildra Mill Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., 76 F.3d 1178, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“As the 

Supreme Court noted in Farrar, even if a party satisfies the definition of prevailing party, the 

district court judge retains broad discretion as to how much to award, if anything.”).

11 Manildra Mill Corp., 76 F.3d at 1182 (internal quotation marks omitted).

12 See Shum v. Intel Corp, 629 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

13 Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc. v. Dutailier Int’l, Inc., 393 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

(abrogated on other grounds by Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 

1749 (2014)).

14 See, e.g., Brooks Furniture Mfg., Inc., 393 F.3d at 1381; Kinzenbaw v. Case LLC, Case No. 05-

cv-01483, 2006 WL 1096683, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 26, 2006); Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case 

No. 5:11-cv-01079-PSG, 2015 WL 1304779, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. March 20, 2015).

15 See Manildra, 76 F.3d at 1183 (“Even if a party satisfies the definition of prevailing party, the 

district court judge retains broad discretion as to how much to award, if anything.”).

16 Apple Inc., 2014 WL 4745933, at*5 (citing Miles v. California, 320 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 

2003)).

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 8
4

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

provide specific reasons identifying why a particular case is not ordinary and that special 

circumstances exist.18 These circumstances are extremely limited.19

IV.

Applying the above standards, the court finds that Apple was the prevailing party and is 

entitled to its taxable costs. Although Apple did not invalidate GBT’s patent, it succeeded in its 

non-infringement defense and achieved its overall litigation objective of avoiding liability.20 

First, Apple requests costs for three categories of transcripts: hearing and trial transcripts, 

deposition transcripts and deposition video recordings.21 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, a prevailing 

party may recover “[f]ees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for 

use in the case.” The hearing transcripts were used for trial briefing and Apple’s motions for 

judgment as a matter of law, and thus were necessarily incurred for use in this case.

22

 As for the 

expedited and realtime costs for the trial transcripts,

23

 although this court does not award these 

 

17 Id.

18 Save Our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 945 (9th Cir. 2003); Champion Produce, Inc. 

v. Rudy Robinson Co., 342 F.3d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003).

19 See Quan v. Computer Sciences Corp., 623 F.3d 870, 888-89 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal citation 

and quotation marks omitted); Emblaze Ltd., 2015 WL 1304779 at *4 n.32.

While Emblaze may try to argue that—as a small company—it falls into the first category, this 

category typically covers indigent plaintiffs or low-income individuals or groups in civil rights 

cases who appropriately receive an exception under the Ninth Circuit standard. See, e.g., Assoc. of 

Mex.-Am. Educators v. State of Cal., 231 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2000); Bowoto v. Chevron Corp., 

Case No. 99-cv-02506, 2009 WL 1081096 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2009); Schaulis v. CTB/McGrawHill, Inc., 496 F. Supp. 666 (N.D. Cal. 1980). Under this precedent, Emblaze’s “limited financial 

resources” in the context of a patent case simply do not appear to count.

20 See Docket No. 548 at 2-3.

21 See Docket No. 622 at 5-6.

22 See Docket No. 622 at 5.

23 See id.

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 4 of 8
5

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

types of costs as a matter of course,24 the undersigned’s experience with patent trials like the one 

in this case has been that expedited trial transcripts and real-time transcription are in fact 

“necessarily obtained.” When trial judges push hard on parties at trial to raise objections and 

motions promptly—so as to minimize the burden on both judge and jury from delay—it is difficult 

to conclude otherwise.25 

As for deposition transcripts and video recordings,26 Section 1920 and Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)(1) 

allow the recovery of the cost, including video recording, of any deposition taken in connection 

with the case.27 All of the deposed witnesses were named on the parties’ trial witness lists and the 

majority testified as witnesses at trial.28 Apple does not request any impermissible costs29

associated with expediting or shipping the deposition transcripts.30 Apple therefore shall receive 

its full requested transcript costs: $22,251.35 for hearing and trial transcripts, $25,351.07 for 

deposition transcripts and $13,763.25 for deposition video recordings.

Second, Apple requests exemplification and copy costs for its trial exhibits and witness 

binders, trial graphics and electronic discovery. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), “[f]ees for 

exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily 

 

24 See, e.g., TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint Corp., Case No. 10-cv-02590, 2014 WL 

1364792, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4, 2014) (denying costs for trial transcripts delivered hourly and 

costs for RealTime); Apple Inc., 2014 WL 4745933, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2014) (awarding 

only standard daily transcripts, but noting that Apple had withdrawn its costs request for expedited 

transcripts).

25 See Kinzenbaw, 2006 WL 1096683, at *6. Because Kinzenbaw originated in the District of 

Iowa, the district court applied Eighth Circuit rather than Ninth Circuit law. But GBT offers no 

clear Ninth Circuit authority suggesting a different standard.

26 See Docket No. 622 at 5-6.

27 See 28 U.S.C. § 1920; Civ. L.R. 54-3(c)(1).

28 See Docket Nos. 433, 436.

29 See Emblaze Ltd., 2015 WL 1304779 at *5.

30 See Docket No. 622 at 6.

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 5 of 8
6

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

obtained for use in the case” are taxable. Civ. L.R. 54-3(d)(4)-(5) specify that “[t]he cost of 

reproducing trial exhibits is allowable to the extent that a Judge requires copies to be provided” 

and that “[t]he cost of preparing charts, diagrams, videotapes, and other visual aids to be used as 

exhibits is allowable if such exhibits are reasonably necessary to assist the jury or the Court in 

understanding the issues at trial.” Apple’s trial exhibit costs were incurred for presenting evidence 

at trial, including stamped exhibit copies and copies of the final set of admitted exhibits for both 

parties.31 These costs are necessary and allowable. 

As for the trial graphics and demonstratives, these also were “reasonably necessary”

32

because this case, like many patent cases, “is exactly the type of complex litigation that requires 

high-quality demonstratives for the edification of the jury.”33 Apple may recover costs associated 

with “the physical preparation and supplication of documents.”

34

 Moreover, these demonstratives 

did not present themselves, and so Apple also may recover the costs for the “in-court technician 

time and the equipment” necessary to present the demonstratives.35

As for electronic discovery, “only costs incurred specifically to produce documents to the 

opposing party are recoverable.”36 “[C]ourts in this district have approved a method that 

calculates what percentage of overall documents were produced to the opposing party and then 

applies that percentage to production-related costs in the vendor’s invoices.”37 Hosting fees are 

excluded, however, because “the court does not tax hosting fees.”38 Apple seeks “physical 

 

31 See Docket No. 622 at 7; Docket No. 616-2 at 5-8.

32 Civ. L.R. 54-3(d)(5).

33 Id. at *6.

34 Emblaze, Ltd., 2015 WL 1304779 at *7.

35 Id. at *7.

36 Id. 

37 Id.

38 Id. (quoting eBay Inc. v. Kelora Sys., LLC, Case No. 10-cv-04947 et al., 2013 WL 1402736, at 

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 6 of 8
7

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

preparation” costs directly relating to the electronic preparation, duplication and production of 

documents that it produced to GBT, and excludes the intellectual effort and hosting costs 

associated with this production.39 It also seeks a percentage of its upload copy costs and work for 

load file preparations, which reflects the proportion of such costs that were associated with 

documents produced to GBT.40 Because Apple seeks only costs incurred in producing documents 

to GBT, and excludes impermissible fees, it shall receive its full requested costs in this category.

In sum, in addition to the $30,686.13 previously taxed by the Clerk, Apple shall receive the 

following additional costs, for a total cost award of $187,060.70:

Category Sub-category Clerk’s taxation Costs awarded on 

review

Transcripts Hearing & trial 

transcripts

$24,331.07 $22,251.35

Deposition transcripts $25,351.07

Deposition video 

recordings

$13,763.25

Subtotal $24,331.07 $61.365.67

Category Sub-category Clerk’s taxation Costs awarded on 

review

Witness Fees Witness Fees $2,444.00 $2,444.00

Subtotal $2,444.00 $2,444.00

Category Sub-category Clerk’s taxation Costs awarded on 

review

Exemplification & 

copies

Trial exhibits & 

witness binders

$3,911.06 $60,997.90

Trial graphics $17,617.61

Electronic discovery $44,635.52

Subtotal $3,911.06 $123,251.03

TOTAL $30,686.13 $187,060.7041

 

*17 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013).

39 See Docket No. 622 at 9.

40 See id. at 9-10.

41 See Docket No. 622 at 3.

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 7 of 8
8

Case No. 5:12-cv-04882-PSG

ORDER GRANTING REVIEW OF TAXATION OF COSTS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:12-cv-04882-PSG Document 628 Filed 12/21/15 Page 8 of 8