Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04910-50/pdf.json

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

---

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

OPEN TEXT S.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BOX, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04910-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO CORRECT 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 648

Defendant Carahsoft Technology Corporation (“Carahsoft”) moves under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 60(a) to “correct” the judgment following a jury trial in this case (including Dkt. 

Nos. 635 and 636) to name Carahsoft a prevailing party. Dkt. No. 648. Carahsoft suggests that 

once this correction is made, a “necessary implication” is that it should be paid its share of taxable 

costs. Id. at 3. Carahsoft does not seek any alteration to the Court’s determination that plaintiff 

Open Text S.A. was the prevailing party against co-defendant Box, Inc. The Federal Circuit has 

deactivated the parties’ appeals in this matter pending the Court’s decision on the motion. Dkt. 

No. 657. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court found the motion suitable for decision 

without oral argument, Dkt. No. 658, and now denies the motion. 

Under Rule 60(a), the Court “may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from 

oversight or omission whenever one is found.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). When correcting a final 

judgment, the “touchstone” of a Rule 60(a) correction is “fidelity to the intent behind the original 

judgment.” Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d 1069, 1078 (9th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, a Court may 

alter or clarify a judgment so that it more clearly reflects the contemporaneous “‘intentions of the 

court and the parties.’” Id. at 1079 (quoting Agro Dutch Indus. Ltd. v. United States, 589 F.3d 

1187, 1192 (Fed. Cir. 2009)) (emphasis removed).

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 659 Filed 12/21/15 Page 1 of 3
2

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

The Court is satisfied that its order on post-trial motions (Dkt. No. 635), and the final 

judgment entered in this matter by the Clerk (Dkt. No. 636), reflect the clear post-trial intentions 

of the Court and the parties. The Court’s identification of Open Text as the prevailing party 

against both defendants is consistent with Carahsoft’s arguments in post-trial briefing. Carahsoft 

never argued that its status as prevailing party could or should be evaluated on its own and 

independent of Box. Throughout this case, defendants treated Box as the lead and main defendant. 

After the jury verdict, defendants first jointly argued for Box alone to be deemed a prevailing 

party and then sought prevailing status for the defendants collectively. See, e.g., Dkt. No 593 at 8 

(arguing Box alone is the prevailing party); Dkt. No. 602 at 1, 5 (same); Dkt. No. 615 at 16

(“Defendants are the prevailing party”). While Carahsoft may wish now that it had argued for its 

prevailing status to be determined independently of Box, it did not. A Rule 60(a) motion is not the 

proper vehicle to rescue Carahsoft from failing to make arguments it should have made in posttrial briefing. See Garamendi, 683 F.3d at 1080 (Rule 60(a) does not authorize corrections that 

“reflect a new and subsequent intent,” or any change in the Court’s reasoning) (internal quotation

omitted).

Even if the Court were inclined and authorized to make a change under Rule 60(a), 

Carahsoft has not shown any reason why the Court should depart from its prior analysis and award 

fees. In the post-trial order, the Court specifically found that the case was “close to a draw.” Dkt. 

No. 635 at 19. The Court was crystal clear in ordering that “each party should bear its own costs.” 

Id. This was the very result Carahsoft urged the Court to adopt if it was not named prevailing 

party: “[i]f Defendants are not deemed the prevailing parties, then each side should bear its own 

costs.” Dkt. No. 615 at 17 n.13; see also Dkt. No. 602 at 5 (Carahsoft argued “Open Text also is 

incorrect in suggesting that costs are mandatory upon a ‘finding for the claimant’ under 35 U.S.C. 

Section 284. That is not the law. The award of costs is discretionary, not mandatory. Fed. R. Civ. 

///

///

///

///

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 659 Filed 12/21/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

P. 54(d)(1)”). Because Carahsoft has demonstrated neither authority nor adequate grounds for 

changing this result under Rule 60(a), the Court declines to alter its post-trial order or judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 21, 2015

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04910-JD Document 659 Filed 12/21/15 Page 3 of 3