Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Imperium Ip Holdings (Cayman), Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

September 13, 2017

IMPERIUM IP HOLDINGS (CAYMAN), LTD.
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, and SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          AMOS L. MAZZANT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is Imperium IP Holdings (Cayman), Ltd.'s (“Imperium”) Motion for Taxation of Costs (Dkt. #369). After reviewing the relevant pleadings, the Court grants Imperium's motion.

         BACKGROUND

         On June 9, 2014, Imperium filed the instant action against Defendants, alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6, 271, 884 (the “'884 Patent), 7, 092, 029 (the “'029 Patent”), and 6, 836, 290 (the “'290 Patent”). On February 8, 2016, the jury returned a verdict finding the following: (1) Defendants infringed Claims 1, 5, 14, and 17 of the '884 Patent; (2) Defendants infringed Claims 1, 6, and 7 of the '029 Patent; (3) Defendants willfully infringed the patents-in-suit; and (4) Claim 10 of the '290 Patent was invalid for obviousness (Dkt. #253). The jury awarded $4, 840, 772 in damages for infringement of the '884 Patent and $2, 129, 608.50 in damages for infringement of the '029 Patent (Dkt. #253). On August 24, 2016, the Court awarded enhanced damages for willful infringement and entered final judgment (Dkt. #329; Dkt. #330).

         On May 19, 2017, Imperium filed the present motion for taxation of costs (Dkt. #369). On June 2, 2017, Defendants filed a response (Dkt. #377). On June 9, 2017, Imperium filed a reply (Dkt. #384). On June 13, 2017, Defendants filed a sur-reply (Dkt. #391).

         LEGAL STANDARD

         Rule 54(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states in relevant part that, “costs- other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party” unless the Court provides otherwise. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d)(1). Rule 54(d) affords courts discretion in awarding costs to prevailing parties. Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan.Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 132 S.Ct. 1997, 2002 (2012). This discretion is bridled by 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which limits the types of costs a court can tax against an unsuccessful party. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441-42 (1987). Section 1920 permits only the following costs:

(1) Fees of the clerk and marshal;
(2) Fees for printed or electronically recorded transcripts necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(3) Fees and disbursements for printing and witnesses;
(4) Fees for exemplification and the costs of making copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in the case;
(5) Docket fees under section 1923 of this title;
(6) Compensation of court appointed experts, compensation of interpreters, and salaries, fees, expenses, and costs of special interpretation services ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.