美國最高法院將對未來版權(quán)訴訟費用的補償作出裁決：Rimini Street v. Oracle

#本文由作者授權(quán)發(fā)表，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)表：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Brad Lane 律師 及Evi Christou律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：美國最高法院將對未來版權(quán)訴訟費用的補償作出裁決：Rimini Street v. Oracle

本年9月，美國最高法院同意對科技公司Oracle與軟件行業(yè)Rimini Street公司之間的版權(quán)糾紛案件進行庭審，案件爭議問題為：美國版權(quán)法允許對勝訴方授予“全部費用（full costs）”的補償，其中是否包含“不可清算的訴訟費用（non-taxable costs）”。

Oracle 和 Rimini Street間的糾紛最初始于2010年，Oracle在聯(lián)邦地區(qū)法院根據(jù)版權(quán)法提起對Rimini Street的指控，稱Rimini Street未獲許可下載其數(shù)據(jù)庫內(nèi)支持材料。在陪審團裁定Rimini Street復(fù)制Oracle的軟件并侵犯其93項版權(quán)后，作為1.24億美元賠償（其中包含損害賠償金、損害賠償利息、律師費及其它訴訟產(chǎn)生費用）的一部分，地區(qū)法院授予Oracle獲得近2000萬美元的法院訴訟費用補償。Rimini Street辯稱其中的1280萬不應(yīng)被授予，因其覆蓋不可清算的訴訟費用。

拓展：

律師費（attorney fee）與訴訟費用（costs）的區(qū)別

律師費通常是當(dāng)事人在訴訟中實際花費最大的部分，但當(dāng)涉及勝訴方可從敗訴方獲得何種花費的補償時，律師費通常與訴訟費用區(qū)分考慮和計算。通常，專門的州法（state law）或?qū)＠ǎㄈ?85條）允許在某些案件中對勝訴方授予律師費補償，或由法庭基于勝訴方提出的補償請求根據(jù)事實進行自由裁量；對訴訟費用的補償，勝訴方必須準(zhǔn)備和證實一份“費用清單（bill of costs）”，其中列出在該司法管轄區(qū)下，由訴訟產(chǎn)生的可清算費用（expenses incurred in the litigation that are taxable）。這些費用被稱為taxable costs通常包括：申請費、證人出庭費、法院指定專家證人費、法庭文件影印費、搜集證詞階段法院書記員費、翻譯費及庭審準(zhǔn)備和訴訟程序中相關(guān)的所有雜費。

Taxation of Costs：對訴訟費用請求動議進行詳細數(shù)額審查的程序稱為“清算（taxation）”，或清算訴訟費用（taxation of costs），以與所得稅（income tax）的概念進行區(qū)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

法院法官或員工可要求清算如下費用：(1)員工費用（包括法官、書記員。法警）(2)訴訟的紙質(zhì)和或電子記錄文件費用 (3)影印與證人費用 (4)例證與材料副本費用 (5)申請費用 (6)法院指定專家、口譯員、特別口譯員等相關(guān)費用。

盡管訴訟當(dāng)事人通常需要根據(jù)“美國規(guī)則”（American Rule）”支付各自的律師費，但美國法律允許對勝訴方授予合理的訴訟費用補償。關(guān)于訴訟費用的一般法條為28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 及 1821，提供了可對勝訴方進行補償?shù)?類費用。然而在版權(quán)案件中，美國版權(quán)法17 U.S.C§505規(guī)定：法院可自由裁量允許或反對一方獲得全部費用（full costs）的補償。

考慮到補償訴訟費用的一般法條只對6類可清算費用進行確認(rèn)，而版權(quán)法則引用“全部費用”的概念，關(guān)于版權(quán)法中授予的費用補償是否應(yīng)受限制于一般法條中的費用分類，各聯(lián)邦上訴法院產(chǎn)生了不同的解釋。例如，第八和第十一巡回法庭將版權(quán)費用補償限制于一般費用規(guī)則中可清算的訴訟費用中，而第九巡回法院經(jīng)常裁決費用補償可覆蓋更多不可清算的訴訟費用，如專家費、顧問費、電子證據(jù)揭示費。這樣的分歧會產(chǎn)生不同的經(jīng)濟結(jié)果，如本案中不可清算的訴訟費用補償超過1700萬美元，包括800萬美元的電子證據(jù)揭示花費和780萬美元的專家費等。

美國最高法院對本案的裁決將對版權(quán)訴訟產(chǎn)生重大影響。它不僅將對特定訴訟費用的分類提供全國統(tǒng)一，而且還可以明確界定對版權(quán)糾紛提起訴訟可獲得花費補償?shù)臋?quán)利，如本案涉及的電子證據(jù)揭示和專家費。可以肯定的是最高法院對本案的裁決將會影響版權(quán)當(dāng)事人未來的策略決策，包括是否以及多久應(yīng)采取版權(quán)主張，考慮到勝訴后可能獲得的費用補償，該費用必須在對這些糾紛進行訴訟時產(chǎn)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.

發(fā)表：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Brad Lane 律師 及Evi Christou律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀（點擊圖文，閱讀全文）

WTO、WIPO等國際組織首次主辦“全球貿(mào)易知識產(chǎn)權(quán)主題論壇”等你來！

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com/”