Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00101/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00101-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amazon.com Inc
Defendant
TainoApp, Inc.
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TAINOAPP, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMAZON.COM INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cv-00101-JSW 

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS 

TO BILL OF COSTS 

Re: Docket Nos. 119-122 

Now before the Court for consideration are TainoApp, Inc.’s (“TainoApp”) objections to 

the bill of costs filed by Amazon.Com Inc. (“Amazon”) The Court has considered the parties’ 

papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it HEREBY OVERRULES 

TainoApp’s objections. 

BACKGROUND 

On May 11, 2015, the Court issued an Order granting TainoApp’s motion for a voluntary 

dismissal with prejudice, subject to the condition that Amazon would be permitted to file a motion 

for sanctions, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. section 285 (“Section 285”). 

On September 22, 2015, the Court denied Amazon’s motion for sanctions. The Court did 

not rule on whether Amazon was a “prevailing party” for purposes of Section 285, because it 

concluded that Amazon had not met its burden to show the case was “exceptional.” 

On October 6, 2015, Amazon filed a Bill of Costs, in which it seeks costs in the amount of 

$1,005.00. 

On October 20, 2015, TainoApp filed objections to the Bill of Costs. Amazon filed a reply 

on October 21, 2015. 

Case 4:15-cv-00101-JSW Document 123 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 4
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 Californi

a

ANALYSIS 

Amazon seeks costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, which provides in 

pertinent part that: “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs 

-- other than attorney’s fees -- should be allowed to the prevailing party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). 

“An award of costs ... involves two separate inquiries. ... First, who is the ‘prevailing party’ 

within the meaning of Rule 54(d)(1). Second, how much (if any) costs should be awarded to the 

prevailing party.” Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In a patent case, 

Federal Circuit law governs the definition of “prevailing party” for purposes of Rule 54(d)(1). Id.; 

see also SSL Services, LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc., 769 F.3d 1073, 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 

However, Ninth Circuit law governs the second step of the inquiry. See Manildra Milling Corp. v. 

Ogilve Mills, Inc., 76 F.3d 1178, 1183 (Fed. Cir. 1996). 

A. Amazon is the “Prevailing Party.” 

“To be a ‘prevailing party,’ our precedent requires that the party 

have received at least some relief on the merits. That relief must 

materially alter the legal relationship between the parties by 

modifying one party’s behavior in a way that ‘directly benefits’ the 

opposing party.” 

Shum, 629 F.3d at 1367. 

In its opposition to Amazon’s motion for sanctions, TainoApp argued that Amazon could 

not be considered a prevailing party, because TainoApp had voluntarily dismissed this case. In 

some instances a voluntary dismissal will not grant a defendant prevailing party status. See RFR 

Industries, Inc. v. Century Steps, Inc., 477 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In RFR Industries, 

the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its case without prejudice and before the defendant had filed 

and served an answer. The court reasoned that “[i]n order for a defendant to be said to have 

‘prevailed’ as the result of a Rule 41 dismissal, the dismissal must have ‘sufficient judicial 

imprimatur to constitute a ‘judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties.’” 

Id. (quoting Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health and Human 

Res., 532 U.S. 598, 605 (2001)). 

 In this case, Amazon had filed and served a motion for summary judgment, which was 

pending when TainoApp filed its Rule 41 motion. Thus, although voluntary, TainoApp’s 

Case 4:15-cv-00101-JSW Document 123 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 4
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 Californi

a

dismissal was “judicially sanctioned” and was granted on the condition that Amazon be permitted 

to file the motion for sanctions.1 See RFR Industries, 477 F.3d at 1353. In addition, unlike the 

plaintiff in the RFR Industries case, TainoApp asked for a dismissal with prejudice. Although the 

Court did not rule on claim construction or on the motion for summary judgment, TainoApp’s 

decision to dismiss with prejudice, and the Court’s approval of that decision, materially altered the 

legal relationship of the parties. See, e.g., Highway Equipment Co., Inc. v. FECO, Ltd., 469 F.3d 

1027, 1033-36 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Inland Steel Co. v. LTV Steel. Co., 364 F.3d 1318, 1320 

(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“An indication of USX’s status as a prevailing party is that the judgment it 

obtained in this case would have res judicata effect as to any claim brought against USX in the 

future with respect to the patent claims that were at issue in the district court case.”). 

 Accordingly, the Court concludes that Amazon has met its burden to show that it is the 

prevailing party. 

B. The Court Shall Award Costs. 

The Court turns to the second step of the inquiry, whether and to what extent costs it 

should award costs. Under Rule 54(d)(1), there is a presumption that courts should award costs to 

the prevailing party, and the losing party bears the burden to show why costs should not be 

awarded. See, e.g., Save our Valley v. Sound Transit, 335 F.3d 932, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2003). The 

Ninth Circuit has articulated several factors that might justify denying costs to the prevailing 

party, such as: 

(1) a losing party’s limited financial resources; (2) misconduct by 

the prevailing party; and (3) the chilling effect of imposing ... high 

costs on future civil rights litigants, as well as (4) whether the issues 

in the case were close and difficult; (5) whether the prevailing 

party’s recovery was nominal or partial; (6) whether the losing party 

litigated in good faith; and (7) whether the case presented a 

landmark issue of national importance. 

Id. at 945. 

TainoApp urges the Court to exercise its discretion and deny costs, citing several of the 

 

1

 That fact distinguishes this case from Rao v. Ross, where the plaintiff filed a voluntary 

dismissal that did not require court approval. No. 08-CV-01596-MHP, 2008 WL 2441926, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. June 13, 2008). 

Case 4:15-cv-00101-JSW Document 123 Filed 11/12/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

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 

rea

fin

not

$1,

the

sta

seq

in r

exc

mis

has

als

Co

Da

asons the Cou

ds TainoApp

Althoug

t a case invo

,005.00, an a

e issues were

te that “Ama

quence.” (O

response to A

ceptional. T

sconduct or 

Accord

s not met its 

o finds that A

For the 

sts. The Cle

IT IS S

ated: Novem

urt conclude

p’s argumen

gh TainoApp

olving an issu

amount that 

e close or dif

azon aggress

rder Denyin

Amazon’s ar

The Court did

acted in bad

dingly, havin

burden to ov

Amazon’s c

foregoing re

erk shall tax 

SO ORDER

mber 12, 201

ed that this w

nts unpersuas

p would app

ue of nationa

would not ch

fficult, becau

sively defend

ng Motion fo

rgument that

d not intend 

d faith. 

ng considered

vercome the

osts are reas

easons, the C

costs in the 

RED. 

5 

4

was not an “e

sive. 

pear to have l

al importanc

hill future lit

use it was no

ded this case

or Sanctions 

t TainoApp’

to imply, no

d the relevan

e presumptio

sonable. 

CONCLU

Court OVER

amount of $

exceptional”

limited finan

ce, Amazon a

tigants. The

ot required to

e,” and filed

at 6:15-16.) 

’s litigation c

or did it find,

nt factors, th

on that costs 

USION 

RRULES Ta

$1,005.00. 

__

JE

Un

” case under 

ncial resourc

asks for cost

e Court cann

o reach the m

d some motio

 The Court 

conduct rend

, that either

he Court con

should be aw

ainoApp’s ob

 

___________

EFFREY S. W

nited States D

Section 285

ces, and alth

ts in the amo

not comment

merits. The 

ons in a “rap

made those 

dered the cas

party engage

cludes that T

warded, and

bjections to t

__________

WHITE 

District Judg

5. The Court

hough this is 

ount of 

t on whether

Court did 

pid fire 

statements 

se 

ed in 

TainoApp 

d the Court 

the Bill of 

____ 

ge 

t

r

Case 4:15-cv-00101-JSW Document 123 Filed 11/12/15 Page 4 of 4