Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04374-72/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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CELERITY, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

 v.

ULTRA CLEAN TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS

AND SERVICE, INC.

Defendant/Counterclaimant

and

ULTRA CLEAN HOLDINGS, INC.

Defendant /

No. C-05-4374 MMC

(Consolidated with C-05-3560 MMC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR REVIEW OF CLERK’S

TAXATION OF COSTS; VACATING

HEARING

On March 13, 2008, the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in the amount of $93,857.56. 

(See Clerk’s Notice, filed March 13, 2008.) Before the Court is Ultra Clean Technology

Systems and Service, Inc. and Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.’s (collectively, “Ultra Clean”)

“Motion for Review of the Clerk’s Taxation of Costs Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 54(d)(1) and Civil L.R. 54-5,” filed March 18, 2008, by which Ultra Clean argues

the Court should reduce the costs taxed to $11,613.52. Celerity, Inc. (“Celerity”) has filed

opposition, to which Ultra Clean has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed

in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for

decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for April 25, 2008, and rules as follows.

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 636 Filed 04/23/08 Page 1 of 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

1

Other than its argument for an equitable reduction, Ultra Clean raises no objection to Celerity’s recovery of (1) $7673.80 for costs expended to reproduce discovery documents, and (2) $4546.67 for costs expended to reproduce trial exhibits. Accordingly,

these costs will be awarded to Celerity.

2

At the outset, the Court finds Ultra Clean has failed to make a sufficient showing that

the total amount of recoverable costs should be equitably reduced in light of Celerity’s

having proven that Ultra Clean’s accused products infringed one, but not all, of the patents

asserted herein. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the specific arguments made by Ultra

Clean, addressing those arguments in the order presented by Ultra Clean.1

1. Original and Copy of Depositions. Celerity initially sought to recover

$41,220.77 in costs incurred in obtaining an original and a copy of various depositions. In

response to the instant motion, Celerity voluntarily withdrew its claim to costs for “shipping,”

“expedited delivery,” and “ASCII/Mini/E-transcripts,” which costs total $2754.19. (See

Celerity’s Opp. at 4:27 - 5:2; Frenza Decl. Ex. A.) As to the remaining $38,466.58, the

Court finds, for the reasons stated by Celerity, that Celerity is entitled to recover such

costs, with one exception. Specifically, the Court finds Celerity is not entitled to recover

$5832.12, the sum representing the costs Celerity incurred in obtaining an original and a

copy of depositions pertaining to its claim for willful infringement; such claim was withdrawn

by Celerity and, consequently, is not a claim on which Celerity prevailed. Accordingly, the

Court finds Celerity is entitled to recover $32,634.46 in costs incurred to obtain originals

and copies of depositions.

2. Charts, Visual Aids, Diagrams. Contrary to Ultra Clean’s argument, the Court

finds, for the reasons stated by Celerity, that Celerity is entitled to recover $27,194.06 in

costs incurred in the preparation of charts, visual aids, and diagrams.

3. Reproduction of Government Records. Contrary to Ultra Clean’s argument,

the Court finds, for the reasons stated by Celerity, that Celerity is entitled to recover

$332.95 in costs incurred in reproducing and certifying government records.

4. Witness Fees. The Court finds, for the reasons stated by Ultra Clean, that

Celerity is not entitled to recover the witness fees associated with the depositions of

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 636 Filed 04/23/08 Page 2 of 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

3

Perkins Coie, LLP, and Peter Dehlinger; such fees total $116.12. As to the remaining

$917.20 sought by Celerity, the Court finds, for the reasons stated by Celerity, that Celerity

is entitled to recover such costs.

5. Reporters’ Transcripts. Contrary to Ultra Clean’s argument, the Court finds, for

the reasons stated by Celerity, that Celerity is entitled to recover $11,128.99 expended in

court reporters’ fees.

6. Reproduction of Deposition Exhibits. Of the $477.90 expended by Celerity to

reproduce deposition exhibits, Ultra Clean objects to Celerity’s recovery of $178.57, the

amount pertaining to Celerity’s claim for willful infringement. For the reasons stated above,

the Court agrees with Ultra Clean. Accordingly, the Court finds Celerity is entitled to

recover $298.43 in costs incurred in reproducing deposition exhibits.

7. Filing Fees. Contrary to Ultra Clean’s argument, the Court finds, for the reasons

stated by Celerity, that Celerity is entitled to recover the $250 filing fee it incurred in filing its

complaint against Ultra Clean.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Ultra Clean’s motion for review of the Clerk’s taxation

of costs is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Celerity is awarded costs in

the total amount of $84,976.56.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 23, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04374-MMC Document 636 Filed 04/23/08 Page 3 of 3