Source: https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-17-copyrights/chapter-5-copyright-infringement-and-remedies/505-remedies-for-infringement-costs-and-attorneys-fees/analysis?citingPage=1&sort=relevance
Timestamp: 2019-03-22 02:29:05
Document Index: 197358706

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 505', '§\u202f505', '§\u202f505', '§ 505', '§ 505', '§1821', '§ 505', '§ 1821', '§ 1821', '§505', '§1821', '§ 505', '§ 505', '§ 1821', '§505', '§1821', '§ 505']

Analyses of § 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees, 17 U.S.C. § 505 | Casetext
17 U.S.C. § 505
ReadReadAttorney AnalysesAnalyses45lockCiting BriefsBriefs161lockCiting CasesCiting Cases2k
57 Analyses of this statute by attorneys
at 1. Nevertheless, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court’s award was appropriate because 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the Copyright Act allows for recovery of “full costs”: In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.Rimini, slip op.
In Depth On March 4, 2019, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., finding that the term “full costs” in 17 USC § 505 of the Copyright Act has no special, expansive meaning, but rather is limited to the costs specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 USC §§1821 and 1920. As Kavanaugh explained, the addition of the adjective “full” to the term “costs” (in the Copyright Act) is not enough to conclude that Congress intended additional costs, beyond those set forth in the general cost statute.
Snell & WilmerMarch 6, 2019
Today, March 4, 2019 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled inRimini Street v. Oracle USA that “full costs” described in 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the (Copyright Act) are limited to the six categories of taxable costs set forth in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821, 1920. The decision reversed the district court’s award of, and the Ninth Circuit’s order affirming, $12,774,550.26 in additional costs to Oracle for litigation costs outside of those delineated in §§ 1821 and 1920, such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting.
Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & SecretsIra SacksMarch 5, 2019
The Supreme Court unanimously decided two Copyright Act cases on March 4, 2019. In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., the Court held that the provision in the Copyright Act that gives federal district courts discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation, 17 U. S. C. §505, covers only the six categories specified in the general costs statute, 28 U. S. C. §§1821, 1920. In Fourth Estate Pub.
Knobbe MartensMarch 14, 2019
The Copyright Act provides that a district court “in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof.” 17 U.S.C. § 505 (emphasis added). However, in the general “costs” statute, Congress defined the term “costs” to encompass only six categories, which did not include expert witness fees, e-discovery fees, or jury consulting fees.
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLPMarch 8, 2019
8 million for “costs” such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting. Oracle’s claim for these broad-ranging costs was that the Copyright Act awarded “full costs” under 17 U.S.C. § 505, and that “full costs” must have a more expansive meaning than the “costs” typically awarded in other statutes and governed by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920. These “costs” are generally the costs of the court for handling the case and costs of witnesses traveling to court for trial — not a party’s out-of-pocket litigation expenses.
Jones DayGregory (Greg) CastaniasMarch 7, 2019
Interestingly, the Supreme Court issued a potentially relevant copyright decision the same day it granted the petition for certiorari in NantKwest. In Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 17-1625, 2019 WL 1005828 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2019), the Supreme Court held that when the Copyright Act allows a district court to award “full costs” to a party, 17 U.S.C. §505, it does not include items like expert fees, consultant fees, and electronic discovery costs. The Supreme Court noted that Congress has specified six categories of litigation expenses that qualify as “costs,” 28 U.S.C. §§1821, 1920, and it held that those six categories are presumptively all that can be awarded by a district court unless there is an “explicit statutory instruction” to the contrary.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLPMarch 6, 2019
On the same day as Fourth Estate, the Court strictly interpreted another copyright provision. In Rimini St. Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., the Court limited district courts’ discretion to award “full costs” under 17 U.S.C. § 505. No. 17-1625, 2019 WL 1005828, at *2 (U.S. Mar. 4, 2019).
Ladas & Parry LLPMarch 5, 2019
8 million in a copyright infringement law suit. The Court held that since the Copyright Act already specifies the types of costs that can be awarded in a copyright suit, this large cost award was not appropriate as the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 505 does not give federal district courts the authority to award additional non-statutory costs in copyright litigation. The Court held that the term “full costs” in the Copyright Act does not expand the types of costs that can be awarded beyond what is in the general costs statute in sections 1821 and 1920.
Davis Wright Tremaine LLPAmbika Kumar DoranMarch 5, 2019