Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00710/USCOURTS-cand-4_02-cv-00710-9/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 AWARDING

IMMERSION

$332,692.33 IN

COSTS AND DENYING

IMMERSION'S

REQUEST FOR

SUPPLEMENTAL

AWARD OF COSTS

Defendants Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., and Sony

Computer Entertainment, Inc., (collectively, Sony) has moved for

review of the Clerk’s taxation of costs in favor of Plaintiff

Immersion Corporation (Immersion). Immersion cross-moved for

review. Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court appointed

retired Judge Eugene F. Lynch of JAMS to serve as Special Master

and review the motions. Judge Lynch issued a tentative ruling on

January 4, 2006, and filed a final Report and Recommendation on

June 14, 2006. Both parties objected to portions of the Special

Master's Report and Recommendation. Immersion has also filed a

supplemental bill of costs incurred as a result of Sony’s motion

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) for relief from final

judgment. Sony opposes any supplemental award of costs. These

objections were taken under submission on the papers. 

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 1 of 12
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

After consideration of all the papers filed by the parties,

the Court adopts the Special Master's Report and Recommendation in

part and modifies it in part, as described below. 

BACKGROUND

In this patent infringement case, Immersion prevailed at trial

on certain of its claims that Sony's Playstation consoles and

Dualshock controllers, in conjunction with forty-four accused

games, infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,275,213 ('213 patent) and

6,424,333 ('333 patent), owned by Immersion. After a trial of

approximately five weeks, a jury reached a verdict on September 21,

2004, finding that the asserted claims of Immersion's patents were

not invalid due to anticipation, obviousness or inadequate written

description. The jury awarded Immersion eighty-two million dollars

as a reasonable royalty for Sony's infringement. The Court later

found in favor of Immersion on Sony's inequitable conduct defense,

denied Sony's motions for judgment as a matter of law and denied

Sony's motion for relief from final judgment. See March 2, 2004

Order Resolving Parties' Motions for Summary Judgment; January 10,

2005 Order Denying Parties' Motions for Judgment as a Matter of Law

and Addressing Other Matters; March 8, 2006 Order Denying

Defendants' Motion for Relief from Final Judgment (hereinafter Rule

60(b) Order). Sony has appealed the judgment against it. 

Immersion, as the prevailing party, filed an Amended Bill of

Costs seeking to tax $758,537.55 in costs (according to Immersion,

this amount is only a “fraction” of the expenses it has incurred). 

The Clerk awarded costs to Immersion in the amount of $514,612.76. 

The Special Master, after briefing and oral argument, recommends

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 2 of 12
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

that the Court award Immersion $298,310 in costs. The objections of

both Immersion and Sony, as well as the Special Master's

recommendation, are described in detail in the discussion section

below. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) authorizes the Court

to grant the prevailing party its costs. The determination of

taxable costs is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and, more

particularly, Local Rule 54-3, which specifically enumerates the

standards for costs recoverable in this District. This Court may

only tax costs explicitly authorized by § 1920. See Alflex Corp. v.

Underwriters Labs., Inc., 914 F.2d 175, 177-78 (9th Cir. 1990); see

also Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 442

(1987). Section 1920 permits the taxing of costs for various items,

such as deposition transcripts and copying of papers, if they are

“necessarily obtained for use in the case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 

DISCUSSION

I. Exemplification and Demonstrative Aids

A. Computer Graphics

The largest category of disputed costs involves the production

or exemplification of graphics or other computer-generated

demonstratives. The Special Master recommends (1) that the Clerk's

award be reduced by $118,861.35, on the ground that Immersion cannot

recover the intellectual effort of preparing graphics or the cost of

meetings between the producers of the graphics and the attorneys;

(2) that Immersion be allowed to recover costs of only those

demonstrative graphics that relate to the patents or otherwise

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 3 of 12
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

explain technical issues; and (3) that Immersion be allowed to

recover only a portion of the costs of the production of the

approximately 235 computer graphics not used at trial. Immersion

objects to the Special Master's first two recommendations, and, with

respect to the third recommendation, asks the Court to revise the

proportion upward. Sony objects to even a proportional award to

Immersion for costs incurred due to computer graphics that were not

used at trial. 

1. Intellectual Effort in Preparing Graphics

Permissible exemplification fees are narrowly construed “only

for the physical preparation and duplication of documents, not the

intellectual effort involved in their production.” Romero v. City

of Pomona, 883 F.2d 1418, 1428 (9th Cir. 1989). In other words,

parties may not “shift their expert witness [or lawyer or lay

witness] costs to plaintiffs under the guise of exemplification

costs.” Id. 

The Special Master concluded that, of the costs requested by

Immersion for preparation of computer graphics, $118,861.35 related

to the intellectual effort, rather than the physical or technical

effort, involved in production. Immersion has not demonstrated that

this conclusion was incorrect. Accordingly, the Court adopts the

Special Master's recommendation to reduce the costs taxed by the

Clerk by $118,861.35.

2. Costs for Production of Graphics

The Special Master's report sets forth the relevant authority

pertaining to recovery of costs for computer graphics used at trial,

and recommends that Immersion be awarded $125,346.00. See also

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 4 of 12
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 5

Order Amending Clerk's Award of Costs and Denying Pl.'s Mot. for

Stay of Costs, LG Electronics v. Asustek Computer, Inc., No. C 01-

1375 CW, slip op. at 6-9 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2005) (holding, in

another complex patent case, that the costs of producing a computer

animation of a patent and the technology it disclosed were

reasonably necessary to assist the jury in understanding the issues

at trial). The Special Master viewed each of the video slides that

Immersion used at trial and recommends allowing costs only for the

thirty-two percent of slides that showed the jury magnified views of

patents or explained other technical issues, but not the remaining

slides that were argumentative or magnified testimony, jury

instructions or other easily-read documents. 

Immersion objects to the Special Master's exclusion of the

latter category of slides on the ground that their use was

reasonably necessary, in this lengthy and complex case, in order to

present the issues to the Court and the jury in an "accessible and

meaningful way." Pl.'s Objs. to Special Master Rep. at 8. Although

the Court agrees that use of computer-generated demonstratives was

reasonably necessary for the presentation technical or scientific

concepts, the Court disagrees that Immersion's use of computer

graphics to present argument and to magnify texts, such as testimony

or jury instructions, was similarly necessary. Immersion was

undoubtedly, and reasonably, influenced by Sony's heavy use of

computer-generated graphics, but the parties' mutual investment in

electronic presentation was not necessary to the jury's

understanding. Therefore, the Court adopts the Special Master's

recommendation and will award costs to Immersion only for those

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 5 of 12
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

1

With respect to other video costs, the Special Master agreed

that the costs of video deposition were necessary, but he

recommended disallowing video costs that appear to exceed the

original and copy permitted by Local Rule 54-3(c)(1). The total

amount recommended to be taxed for videotaped depositions is

$10,770.88. Special Master's Rep. at 15. Neither party appears to

6

slides he identified as allowable exemplification. 

3. Unused Slides

Immersion seeks to tax the costs of approximately 235 graphics

that were not used at trial. Sony characterizes all such graphics

as "unnecessary." The Special Master accepted Immersion's argument

that adequate trial preparation necessarily included preparation of

graphics that would ultimately be unused, but found that the total

amount of unused graphics was unnecessarily large. He therefore

recommends that the Court allow costs for roughly the same

percentage of the unused video slides as were allowed for the slides

actually used at trial. The Court agrees that in a case of this

size and complexity, the preparation of some excess graphics was

reasonably necessary, and it further agrees with the Special

Master's recommendation to allow the cost of only a portion of the

unused slides as an appropriate compromise. Therefore, the Court

adopts his recommendation to tax $47,005.00 in costs for these

items. 

B. Video Editing

The Clerk did not tax video editing and dubbing costs and,

although Immersion moved to increase costs taxed to include such

costs, the Special Master did not specifically address the issue in

his report or recommend that the Court increase costs on this

basis.1

 Immersion argues that it should be allowed to tax costs of

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 6 of 12
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

object to this portion of the Special Master's report, and the

Court adopts it. 

7

video editing because some potential Sony witnesses resided in Japan

and were unavailable to travel to the United States, and the Court

agreed that dubbing their testimony into English was the most

efficient presentation. The fact that the Court agreed that dubbing

of these potential witnesses was an acceptable and convenient

solution does not mean that it was necessary in the context of this

case. Therefore, the Court overrules Immersion's objection to the

Special Master's failure to include this item in his recommendation. 

C. On-site Audio-Visual Support

The Clerk also did not tax costs of on-site audio-visual

support and, although Immersion moved to include such costs, the

Special Master did not recommend that the Court increase costs on

this basis. Immersion argues that audio-visual support in the

courtroom was reasonably necessary, and that an additional

$22,500.00 should be allowed for this purpose (twenty court days at

five hours per day at the firm’s rate of $225 per hour). The Court

disagrees. Although convenient, an on-site technician was not

necessary in order to operate the courtroom audio-visual equipment. 

Therefore, the Court overrules Immersion’s objection to the Special

Master’s recommendation. 

D. Copying Costs

The Special Master recommends that Immersion recover $12,384.23

in copying costs, for one set of copies at a rate of $0.12 per noncolor copy and $1.25 for color copies, in addition to some copying

costs related to the patent history. Immersion objects on the

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 7 of 12
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

Sony dismisses this amount as “speculative;” however, it is

adequately supported by the Birnholz declaration. 

8

grounds that the Special Master (1) failed to include the costs of

copying the trial exhibit binders lodged with the Court before

trial; (2) failed to include costs for a set of discovery documents

for Immersion; and (3) incorrectly calculated costs for reproducing

patents and PTO file histories. 

1. Trial Exhibit Binders

In his tentative ruling, the Special Master opined that

Immersion’s request for two sets of copies (one for the judge and

one for the Clerk) of its 991 trial exhibits was unnecessary where

only 192 exhibits were ultimately offered into evidence. Even

recognizing pre-trial uncertainty about which documents will be

introduced at trial, he wrote that “there is no question” that

“offering only one fifth of the exhibit[s] into evidence and then

seeking copying costs for all of them is questionable.” Tentative

Ruling at 14. However, the Special Master omitted this entire

amount (90,000 pages at $0.12 per page, for a total of $10,800)2

from his final calculations. The Court agrees with Immersion that

the trial exhibit binders were required expenses, but agrees with

Judge Lynch that the total number of trial exhibits copied was

excessive in light of the much smaller number actually used. 

Therefore, the Court will allow Immersion to tax only half of the

two sets of trial exhibits, or $5,400. 

2. Immersion's Discovery Copies

The Special Master allowed Immersion’s costs for copies of

documents produced to Sony, but recommended disallowing Immersion’s

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 8 of 12
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 9

request for its own copy of those discovery documents, following

authority holding that more than one copy is a matter of

convenience, not necessity. Immersion objects, arguing that in this

complex patent case, having its counsel’s own copy of discovery

materials, to avoid working with originals, was a necessity, not a

luxury or convenience. Consistent with its rulings in other complex

patent cases, the Court will not allow Immersion to tax its own copy

of its discovery materials, and therefore the Special Master’s

recommendation on this issue is adopted. 

3. Patents and PTO File Histories 

The Special Master recommends disallowing $2,804.46 in costs

for obtaining from the PTO official copies of patent histories which

Immersion already possessed, on the grounds that Immersion should

have first asked Sony to stipulate to the admissibility of the

unofficial patent histories. Immersion asserts that Sony would

“undoubtedly” have refused to stipulate but, while this may be true,

it does not respond to the Special Master’s reasoning that Immersion

should have attempted a more cooperative approach. Therefore, the

Court adopts his recommendation to award only $1,068.51 in costs for

obtaining official patent documents. 

II. Witness Fees

The Special Master recommends that Immersion be allowed to tax

as necessary witnesses expenses only a per diem rate and travel

expenses for one round trip per witness, except for witnesses

recalled later in the trial. Immersion expert witness Dr. Edward

Colgate made three separate trips from Chicago to Oakland during

trial to testify on August 16 through 19, August 22 and 23 and

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 9 of 12
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 10

September 6 through 8. Immersion asks that the cost of each trip be

taxed. Although the Special Master’s recommendation suggests that

two of Dr. Colgate’s trips would be taxed because he testified

during both the presentation of Immersion’s case-in-chief and in

rebuttal, the Special Master’s calculation includes only one roundtrip airfare. The Court agrees with Immersion that a separate trip

for Dr. Colgate’s rebuttal testimony is a permissible expense. 

However, the Court finds that Dr. Colgate’s weekend trip back to

Chicago in the midst of his testimony during the case-in-chief was a

matter of convenience rather than necessity, and should not be taxed

to Sony. Therefore, the Court will add an additional $1,051.30 to

the Special Master’s calculation of witness expenses. 

III. Interpreters

Immersion objects to two types of costs relating to

interpreters which the Special Master did not recommend taxing:

(1) its request for $14,849 for the services of a check interpreter

during the Japanese-language deposition of a Sony executive; and

(2) Immersion’s interpreters’ travel costs to and from Osaka. 

With respect to the first objection, 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. The Court adopts his recommendation. 

In its second objection, Immersion notes that Sony’s

interpreters traveled to Osaka from Los Angeles, and explains that

it hired two highly recommended Tokyo-based individuals who were

familiar with the technical issues. Immersion does not state that

it made any attempt to find similarly qualified interpreters in

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 10 of 12
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 11

Osaka. Immersion’s rationale for hiring non-local interpreters

speaks to convenience rather than necessity. Therefore, the Court

adopts the Special Master’s recommendation regarding taxation of the

interpreters’ travel costs. 

IV. Other Costs

Immersion objects to the Special Master’s recommendation on the

grounds that it omits, likely inadvertently, $5,425 in deposition

reservation fees at the American Consulate in Osaka, Japan. Sony

agrees that this amount should be added to the Special Master’s

recommendation. Accordingly, the Court increases taxation of costs

for this $5,425 in “other costs.” 

V. Immersion’s Request for Supplemental Award

Immersion requests that the Court enter a supplemental award of

$45,879.48 in costs incurred as a result of Sony’s unsuccessful

motion under Rule 60(b) for relief from final judgment.

The Court agrees with Sony that Immersion’s supplemental bill

of costs is untimely. Civil Local Rule 54-1(a) requires that a bill

of costs be served and filed "[n]o later than 14 days after entry of

judgment or order under which costs may be claimed." Here, the

supplemental bill of costs was filed several months after the Court

issued the order for which Immersion now maintains that costs may be

claimed. 

For these reasons, the Court denies Immersion's request to

enter a supplemental award of costs. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the Special

Master's Report and Recommendation (Docket No. 1923) in part and

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 11 of 12
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 12

overrules it in part, thereby GRANTING in part the parties' cross

motions for review of the Clerk's taxation of costs (Docket Nos.

1701 and 1703) and DENYING them in part, as follows. Immersion is

awarded a total of $332,692.33 in costs. This total includes

$194,851.00 for non-copying exemplification costs; $18,852.74 for

copying costs; $10,770.88 for video deposition costs; $5,842.30 for

witness fees; $70,909.92 for court reporter fees; $25,609.49 for

interpreter fees; $431 for the Clerk's fee; and $5,425 for other

costs. Immersion's request for a supplemental award of costs is

DENIED (Docket No. 1926). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/23/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:02-cv-00710-CW Document 1932 Filed 08/23/06 Page 12 of 12