Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00710/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00710-11/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMMERSION CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT AMERICA,

INC., and SONY COMPUTER

ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 02-0710 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S AND

DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS TO

CORRECT/AMEND

COSTS AWARD

Plaintiff Immersion Corporation has filed a motion to amend

the Court's order awarding it $332,692.33 in costs. Defendants

oppose the motion and file their own motion to amend the costs

award. Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants' motion. The

matter was decided on the papers. Having considered the parties'

papers the Court grants both Plaintiff's and Defendants' motions. 

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1938 Filed 10/06/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

I. Plaintiff's Motion: Interpreter Fees

Plaintiff renews its request for $14,849 in fees for Jared

Taylor, a check interpreter at trial. The Court denied that award,

explaining that "the Special Master relied on Immersion’s

acceptance of the Clerk’s award in deciding not to include in his

recommendation for taxation of costs the services of the check

interpreter." August 23, 2006 Order at 10. Plaintiff now argues

that it did not accept the Clerk's award, citing its statement that

"the costs for Mr. Taylor should be awarded as well." Opposition

to Sony's Motion for Review of Taxation of Costs (Opposition) at

15. 

In responding to Sony's objections to the Clerk's award before

the Special Master, Immersion stated, "Had Sony not brought this

motion, Immersion would have accepted the Clerk's decision

regarding costs." Id. at 1. The Clerk had declined to award

Immersion the $14,849 it now seeks, and Immersion cross-moved for

inclusion of those fees "given Sony's challenge to the award." Id.

The Special Master noted that Immersion stated in its final brief

in opposition to the Clerk's award that "the Clerk's award is

appropriate." Special Master's Recommendation at 17. Plaintiff

argues that its statement was out of context, citing the

surrounding text in the Opposition: "The Clerk declined to allow

the cost for Mr. Taylor but allowed the remaining translation

costs. The Clerk's award is appropriate; indeed, the costs for Mr.

Taylor should be awarded as well." Opposition at 15. 

Based on this context, it is reasonable to conclude that

Plaintiff was stating only that the translation costs the Clerk

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1938 Filed 10/06/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

awarded were reasonable, and that it believed that additional

translation costs should also be awarded. Therefore, the Court

considers whether the cost of the check interpreter should have

been awarded. 

Although 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) provides generally for the

taxation of "compensation of interpreters," there is no statutory

provision considering check interpreters. Further, neither party

cites any specific authority regarding the allowability of check

interpreters. Immersion argues that the use of the check

interpreters at trial was reasonably necessary because the

witnesses were able to choose their own interpreters and the

Japanese-speaking witnesses were all Sony's. Sony counters that

Immersion elected to use the check translators as "a discretionary

luxury" and that the Court may only tax interpreter costs that were

"necessarily incurred." Opposition at 2. However, while § 1920

requires a demonstration that certain costs were "necessarily

obtained," it does not make such a requirement for costs for

interpreters. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920(2), (4). 

The Court finds that, in the context of this case, Immersion's

costs for the use of a check interpreter are recoverable under 

§ 1920(6). Therefore, the Court GRANTS Immersion's motion to amend

costs and increases the costs awarded by $14,849 (Docket No. 1936). 

II. Defendants' Motion

Defendants move the Court to reduce the amount of non-copying

exemplification costs from $194,851 to $172,351, the amount

recommended by the Special Master. Because the Court adopted the

Special Master's recommendations for each of the categories of nonCase 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1938 Filed 10/06/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 4

copying exemplification costs, the Court reduces its award for

these costs by $22,500 to $172,351, the amount recommended by the

Special Master. Defendants' motion is GRANTED (Docket No. 1935). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 10/6/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1938 Filed 10/06/06 Page 4 of 4