美国最高法院将对未来版权诉讼费用的补偿作出裁决：Rimini Street v. Oracle

#本文由作者授权发表，未经作者许可，禁止转载，不代表IPRdaily立场#

发表：IPRdaily中文网（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Brad Lane 律师 及Evi Christou律师

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所

原标题：美国最高法院将对未来版权诉讼费用的补偿作出裁决：Rimini Street v. Oracle

本年9月，美国最高法院同意对科技公司Oracle与软件行业Rimini Street公司之间的版权纠纷案件进行庭审，案件争议问题为：美国版权法允许对胜诉方授予“全部费用（full costs）”的补偿，其中是否包含“不可清算的诉讼费用（non-taxable costs）”。

Oracle 和 Rimini Street间的纠纷最初始于2010年，Oracle在联邦地区法院根据版权法提起对Rimini Street的指控，称Rimini Street未获许可下载其数据库内支持材料。在陪审团裁定Rimini Street复制Oracle的软件并侵犯其93项版权后，作为1.24亿美元赔偿（其中包含损害赔偿金、损害赔偿利息、律师费及其它诉讼产生费用）的一部分，地区法院授予Oracle获得近2000万美元的法院诉讼费用补偿。Rimini Street辩称其中的1280万不应被授予，因其覆盖不可清算的诉讼费用。

拓展：

律师费（attorney fee）与诉讼费用（costs）的区别

律师费通常是当事人在诉讼中实际花费最大的部分，但当涉及胜诉方可从败诉方获得何种花费的补偿时，律师费通常与诉讼费用区分考虑和计算。通常，专门的州法（state law）或专利法（如285条）允许在某些案件中对胜诉方授予律师费补偿，或由法庭基于胜诉方提出的补偿请求根据事实进行自由裁量；对诉讼费用的补偿，胜诉方必须准备和证实一份“费用清单（bill of costs）”，其中列出在该司法管辖区下，由诉讼产生的可清算费用（expenses incurred in the litigation that are taxable）。这些费用被称为taxable costs通常包括：申请费、证人出庭费、法院指定专家证人费、法庭文件影印费、搜集证词阶段法院书记员费、翻译费及庭审准备和诉讼程序中相关的所有杂费。

Taxation of Costs：对诉讼费用请求动议进行详细数额审查的程序称为“清算（taxation）”，或清算诉讼费用（taxation of costs），以与所得税（income tax）的概念进行区分。Uram v. Uram, 66 B.C.L.R. 236 (BCSC, 1985)

28 U.S. Code 司法和司法程序 § 1920 - Taxation of costs

法院法官或员工可要求清算如下费用：(1)员工費用（包括法官、书记员。法警）(2)诉讼的纸质和或电子记录文件费用 (3)影印与证人费用 (4)例证与材料副本费用 (5)申请费用 (6)法院指定专家、口译员、特别口译员等相关费用。

尽管诉讼当事人通常需要根据“美国规则”（American Rule）”支付各自的律师费，但美国法律允许对胜诉方授予合理的诉讼费用补偿。关于诉讼费用的一般法条为28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 及 1821，提供了可对胜诉方进行补偿的6类费用。然而在版权案件中，美国版权法17 U.S.C§505规定：法院可自由裁量允许或反对一方获得全部费用（full costs）的补偿。

考虑到补偿诉讼费用的一般法条只对6类可清算费用进行确认，而版权法则引用“全部费用”的概念，关于版权法中授予的费用补偿是否应受限制于一般法条中的费用分类，各联邦上诉法院产生了不同的解释。例如，第八和第十一巡回法庭将版权费用补偿限制于一般费用规则中可清算的诉讼费用中，而第九巡回法院经常裁决费用补偿可覆盖更多不可清算的诉讼费用，如专家费、顾问费、电子证据揭示费。这样的分歧会产生不同的经济结果，如本案中不可清算的诉讼费用补偿超过1700万美元，包括800万美元的电子证据揭示花费和780万美元的专家费等。

美国最高法院对本案的裁决将对版权诉讼产生重大影响。它不仅将对特定诉讼费用的分类提供全国统一，而且还可以明确界定对版权纠纷提起诉讼可获得花费补偿的权利，如本案涉及的电子证据揭示和专家费。可以肯定的是最高法院对本案的裁决将会影响版权当事人未来的策略决策，包括是否以及多久应采取版权主张，考虑到胜诉后可能获得的费用补偿，该费用必须在对这些纠纷进行诉讼时产生。

附：英文全文

Rimini Street v. Oracle: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide the Future of Copyright Litigation Cost Awards

On September 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the copyright dispute between a technology company, Oracle, and a software business, Rimini Street, directed to the issue of whether the U.S. Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs” to a prevailing party includes non-taxable costs.  

The dispute between Oracle and Rimini Street first arose in 2010 when Oracle filed suit in federal district court under the Copyright Act claiming that Rimini Street downloaded Oracle’s database support materials without a license.  The district court awarded Oracle close to $20 million in costs as part of a $124 million verdict after a jury found that Rimini Street copied Oracle’s software and infringed 93 Oracle copyrights.  Rimini Street argued that $12.8 million of those costs could not be awarded because they cover non-taxable costs.

While litigants are generally required to pay their own attorney’s fees under the American rule, U.S. law permits reasonable costs to be awarded to a prevailing party.  The general cost statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821 (implemented through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54), provide six categories of costs that may be awarded to the prevailing party: (1) fees of the clerk and marshal; (2) fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts; (3) fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses; (4) fees for exemplification and costs of making copies of materials; (5) docket fees; and (6) compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses and costs of special interpretation services.  

However, in copyright cases, Section 505 of the Copyright Act provides that “the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party.”  17 U.S.C. § 505.

Given that the general cost statutes only identify six categories of taxable costs while the Copyright Act references “full costs”, the federal appellate courts have split in their interpretation of whether the award of costs under the Copyright Act is limited to the categories of costs in the general cost statutes.  For example, the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have limited copyright awards to taxable costs under the cost statutes, while the Ninth Circuit has routinely held that an award of costs can cover a larger list of nontaxable costs, such as expert fees, consultant fees and electronic discovery costs.  This split can have meaningful economic consequences, such as in this dispute, where the recovery of “non-taxable costs” involves more than $17 million, including $8 million in electronic discovery expenses and $7.8 million in expert fees.

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case may have significant implications for copyright litigants.  Not only will it provide national uniformity for particular categories of costs, but it also may clearly define entitlement to recovery of expenses necessary to litigate copyright disputes, such as the electronic discovery and expert fees involved in this case.  To be sure, the high court’s ruling in this case will influence copyright litigants’ future decision-making, including whether, and for how long, they should pursue copyright claims given the possibility of post-victory recovery of expenses that must be incurred to litigate these disputes.

发表：IPRdaily中文网（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Brad Lane 律师 及Evi Christou律师

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所

编辑：IPRdaily赵珍          校对：IPRdaily纵横君

推荐阅读（点击图文，阅读全文）

WTO、WIPO等国际组织首次主办“全球贸易知识产权主题论坛”等你来！

“投稿”请投邮箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「关于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影响力的知识产权媒体+产业服务平台，致力于连接全球知识产权人，用户汇聚了中国、美国、德国、俄罗斯、以色列、澳大利亚、新加坡、日本、韩国等15个国家和地区的高科技公司、成长型科技企业IP高管、研发人员、法务、政府机构、律所、事务所、科研院校等全球近50多万产业用户（国内25万+海外30万）；同时拥有近百万条高质量的技术资源+专利资源，通过媒体构建全球知识产权资产信息第一入口。2016年获启赋资本领投和天使汇跟投的Pre-A轮融资。

（英文官网：iprdaily.com  中文官网：iprdaily.cn） 

本文来自Brinks Gilson & Lione律师事务所并经IPRdaily.cn中文网编辑。转载此文章须经权利人同意，并附上出处与作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立场，如若转载，请注明出处：“http://www.iprdaily.cn/”