Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. explained

Litigants:Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
Arguedate:January 14
Argueyear:2019
Decidedate:March 4
Decideyear:2019
Fullname:Rimini Street, Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al.
Usvol:586
Uspage:___
Parallelcitations:139 S. Ct. 873; 203 L. Ed. 2d 180; 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1459
Docket:17-1625
Prior:Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc., 209 F. Supp. 3d 1200 (D. Nev. 2016); 879 F.3d 948, 125 U.S.P.Q.2d 1380 (9th Cir. 2018); cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 52 (2018).
Holding:A federal district court's discretion to award "full costs" to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
Majority:Kavanaugh
Joinmajority:unanimous
Lawsapplied:Copyright Act of 1976, Fee Act of 1853

Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., 586 U.S. ___ (2019), is a 2019 United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Copyright Act's award of "full costs," to a prevailing party in a copyright infringement claim is limited to taxable costs defined by the Fee Act of 1853, rejecting a broader interpretation that permitted fee awards to include litigation expenses outside the statutory schedule of costs.[1]

The Court cited three prior Supreme Court cases limiting awards to those specified by Congress: Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc. (1987), West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (1991), and Arlington Central School District Board of Education v. Murphy (2006).

External links

Notes and References

  1. Steve Brachmann, Rimini Street v. Oracle USA: Kavanaugh Frowns on Broad Interpretation of 'Full Costs' Under Copyright Act, IP Watchdog, March 4, 2019.