Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: January 14, 2019
Decided: March 4, 2019
Outcome
Reversed in part and remanded
Vote
9-0
Majority
Brett Kavanaugh • Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch

Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. is a case that was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 14, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. The court reversed in part and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding that 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."Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Rimini Street Inc. provides third-party support for Oracle's software, in competition with Oracle's own maintenance service. In order to compete more effectively, Rimini downloaded Oracle's software updates from its website in violation of the website's terms of use. Oracle sued Rimini Street for copyright infringement. A jury ruled against Rimini, awarding Oracle $124 million, including attorney’s fees and costs. The Ninth Circuit Court decreased the award amount but affirmed the district court's verdict.
  • The issue: Whether the Copyright Act's allowance of "full costs" (17 U.S.C. § 505) to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.[2]
  • The outcome: The court reversed in part and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding that 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."


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[3]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • March 4, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court reversed in part and remanded the 9th Circuit's ruling
    • January 14, 2019: Oral argument
    • September 27, 2018: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • May 31, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 8, 2018: The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the lower court's ruling that Rimini Streets was guilty of copyright infringement.

    Background

    Rimini Street Inc. provides third-party support for Oracle's software, in competition with Oracle's own maintenance service. In order to compete more effectively, Rimini downloaded Oracle's software updates from its website in violation of the website's terms of use. Oracle sued Rimini Street for copyright infringement. A jury ruled against Rimini, awarding Oracle $50 million plus attorney’s fees and costs, for a total of $124 million.[4]

    Rimini appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part the district court's ruling. The court "affirmed the district court’s partial summary judgment and partial judgment after trial on Oracle’s claims that Rimini infringed its copyright." It reversed the lower court's ruling that Rimini violated the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, the Nevada Computer Crimes Law, and California’s Unfair Competition Law, and therefore reduced the damages amount related to those claims.[3]

    The Ninth Circuit Court disagreed with Rimini that the district court had incorrectly included in the award $12.7 million in non-taxable costs. The court cited precedent from Twentieth Century Fox v. Entertainment Distribution, which found that "because 17 U.S.C. § 505 permits the award of full costs, the award of costs under § 505 is not limited to the categories of costs described in 28 U.S.C. § 1920. 429 F.3d 869, 885 (9th Cir. 2005)."[3]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[2]

    Questions presented:
    • Whether the Copyright Act's allowance of "full costs" (17 U.S.C. § 505) to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[5]

    Transcript

    • Read the oral argument transcript here.

    Outcome

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the court. The court reversed in part and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, holding that 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."[1]

    Opinion

    In his opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote,

    “ The question presented in this case is whether the Copyright Act’s reference to 'full costs' authorizes a court to award litigation expenses beyond the six categories of 'costs' specified by Congress in the general costs statute. The statutory text and our precedents establish that the answer is no. The term 'full' is a term of quantity or amount; it does not expand the categories or kinds of expenses that may be awarded as 'costs' under the general costs statute. In copyright cases, §505’s authorization for the award of 'full costs' therefore covers only the six categories specified in the general costs statute, codified at §§1821 and 1920. We reverse in relevant part the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.[6] ”

    Text of the opinion

    • Read the full opinion here.

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.," accessed March 5, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "QPReport 17-1625 Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.," accessed November 15, 2018
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 SCOTUSblog, "Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.," accessed November 15, 2018
    4. ↑ Oyez, "Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.," accessed November 16, 2018
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. argued January 14, 2019
    6. ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Rimini_Street_Inc._v._Oracle_USA_Inc.&oldid=8747750"