Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-04483-34/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

POSTX CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SECURE DATA IN MOTION, INC., d/b/a/

SIGABA,

Defendant. /

No. C 02-4483 SI

Related Case No. 03-521 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO RETAX BILL OF COSTS

Plaintiff has filed a motion to retax its bill of costs, which is scheduled for a hearing on

September 8, 2006. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines the matter is appropriate

for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the September 8, 2006 hearing. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

Plaintiff contends that this Court’s July 24, 2006 Order Denying Plaintiff’s Bill of Costs was

procedurally improper because the Clerk did not first tax the costs. As plaintiff is aware, Sigaba filed

extensive objections to plaintiff’s bill of costs, and a number of those objections presented legal

questions beyond the purview of the Clerk. Although the Civil Local Rules do not specifically address

such a situation, it is the Court’s experience that when such objections are raised, the bill of costs and

objections thereto are ruled on by the Court in the first instance. The Court finds no procedural

impropriety here, and indeed, it would be a considerable waste of judicial resources to first require the

Clerk to tax PostX’s voluminous bill of costs, only to have this Court deny the entire tax bill on purely

legal grounds.

PostX also contends that this Court’s July 24, 2006 Order was substantively flawed because the

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1173 Filed 08/18/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Court did not consider “PostX’s complete success in defeating Sigaba’s counterclaims.” To the

contrary, the Court considered the entire record in this case, including PostX’s success on the

counterclaims, in reaching the conclusion that each side should bear its own costs. It is true that PostX

defeated Sigaba’s counterclaims; it is also true that PostX prevailed on one of four of its own claims.

As the Court noted in its prior order, “in the event of a mixed judgment . . . it is within the discretion

of a district court to require each party to bear its own costs.” Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494, 1523

(9th Cir. 1996). The fact that PostX prevailed on Sigaba’s counterclaims does not alter the fact that

there was a mixed judgment in this case. 

Accordingly, for all of the reasons set forth in the Court’s July 24, 2006 Order, the Court

exercises its discretion and finds that each side should bear its own costs. Plaintiff’s motion to retax the

bill of costs is DENIED. (Docket No. 1157).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2006 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:02-cv-04483-SI Document 1173 Filed 08/18/06 Page 2 of 2