Opinion ID: 771387
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Award of Costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)

Text: 53 Ruiz and Fasteel argue that the district court erred in holding that neither party was the prevailing party for the purpose of awarding costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1). Rule 54(d)(1) provides for the award of costs other than attorneys' fees . . . to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs. A party who is successful in declaring a competitor's patent invalid is a prevailing party for purposes of the rule. SeeManildra Milling Corp. v. Ogilvie Mills, Inc., 76 F.3d 1178, 1183, 37 USPQ2d 1707, 1711 (Fed. Cir. 1996). An award of costs under Rule 54(d)(1) falls within the discretion of the trial court. See id. ([E]ven if a party satisfies the definition of prevailing party, the district court retains broad discretion as to how much to award, if any.). 54 In this case, Ruiz and Fasteel prevailed on the patent invalidity issue, but Chance prevailed on all of the other issues, including the non-patent issues. The district court did not err in refusing to award costs, for neither party prevailed sufficiently to require an award of costs and make a decision not to do so an abuse of discretion.