Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.

Background

Oracle, a software company, sued Rimini Street, a company that sells third-party software support, and its CEO after a jury found Rimini copied Oracle’s software and violated state computer access laws. The jury awarded Oracle $35.6 million for copyright infringement and $14.4 million under state statutes. The District Court added $28.5 million in attorney’s fees, $4.95 million in taxable costs (later reduced to $3.4 million), and $12.8 million for other litigation expenses such as expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting. The Ninth Circuit upheld the $12.8 million award as permitted by the Copyright Act’s authorization of “full costs,” prompting the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of that phrase.

Reasoning

The Court framed the question as whether “full costs” allows courts to award expenses beyond the six categories listed in the general federal costs statutes (28 U.S.C. §§ 1821, 1920). The Court explained that “full” is a word of quantity that does not expand the kinds of recoverable costs and relied on precedent holding that a statute awarding “costs” does not include extra litigation expenses unless Congress says so explicitly. The Court reviewed historical usage and found no persuasive basis to treat “full costs” as covering additional expenses. The Court therefore held that “full costs” means only the costs identified in §§ 1821 and 1920, reversed the Ninth Circuit in relevant part, and remanded.

Real world impact

Going forward, trial courts cannot include expert witness fees, e-discovery costs, or jury consultant fees among “full costs” awarded under the Copyright Act unless Congress expressly authorizes those items. Attorney’s fees remain separately addressable under the Copyright Act’s second sentence. Congress remains free to change the rule by statute if broader recovery is intended.