Source: https://www.stoneslaw.net/supreme-court-weighs-meaning-of-full-costs-in-rimini-street-v-oracle-usa-oral-arguments/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:20:33+00:00

Document:
Supreme Court Weighs Meaning of ‘Full Costs’ in Rimini Street v. Oracle USA Oral Arguments | Stone Law, P.C.
On the morning of January 14th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, a case that asks the nation’s highest court to decide whether the recovery of “full costs” in a copyright infringement suit as governed by 17 U.S.C. § 505 is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and 28 U.S.C. § 1821 or whether non-taxable costs can also be recovered. Much of the day’s discussion centered on the meaning of “full costs” and how that term had evolved under various revisions of U.S. copyright law, going back to the Copyright Act of 1831… Clement argued that Rimini Street’s interpretation of full costs renders both the word full completely superfluous and the first sentence of Section 505 without any meaning. “The better course [is] to say that ‘full’ means full, rather than nothing at all,” Clement argued.
The post Supreme Court Weighs Meaning of ‘Full Costs’ in Rimini Street v. Oracle USA Oral Arguments appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 505
 § 1920
 § 1821
 v.