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.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, June 20: Advocate General Tells CJEU to Affirm €4 Billion Antitrust Fine Against Google; Recentive Challenges Section 101 Invalidation of Machine Learning Claims
- Stewart Expands on ‘Settled Expectations’ Criteria in Interim Discretionary Denial Process
- Mediocre Results so Far for Deferred Subject Matter Eligibility Response Pilot
- European Patent Organization: Responses from ChatGPT Do Not Represent the “Understanding of a Skilled Person”
- Blackburn and Hirono Sign on to PERA 2025