Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation
Filing
501
MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 493 Motion To Retax Costs. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly.(MW)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
4
5
6
7
8
9
IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
Plaintiff,
VALVE CORPORATION,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
MINUTE ORDER
Defendant.
10
11
C17-1182 TSZ
v.
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
(1)
The motion brought by plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Ironburg”) to
retax costs, docket no. 493, is DENIED. The Court agrees with defendant Valve
Corporation (“Valve”) that Ironburg waived its “there can be only one prevailing party”
argument. Before entering partial judgment allowing both Ironburg and Valve to tax
costs, the Court provided the parties an opportunity to review a proposed form of partial
judgment and file any objections. See Minute Order (docket no. 461). Ironburg indicated
that it “had no objections to Appendix A,” which was the proposed partial judgment
attached to the Court’s Minute Order. See Ironburg’s Resp. at 1 (docket no. 463 at 2).
With respect to the taxation of costs, the language in the Partial Judgment entered on
July 19, 2021, docket no. 464, was identical to the wording in Appendix A. Ironburg’s
current contention that Valve should not have been permitted to tax costs related to
Ironburg’s unsuccessful claims involving U.S. Patent No. 9,089,770 (“the ’770 Patent”)
is not timely asserted. Even if Ironburg had not acquiesced in a setoff of the parties’
respective costs, the authority on which it now relies, Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360
(Fed. Cir. 2010), would not support its challenge. In Shum, the Federal Circuit held that
“the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to each party with respect
to the claims on which they each prevailed, then netting those sums to arrive at the final
figure.” Id. at 1364; see also id. at 1370 (“It was not unreasonable for the district court to
consider which claims the parties respectively won, or to reduce the prevailing party’s
costs award to reflect the extent of its victory (i.e., the claims it lost).”). Citing Shum, the
Ninth Circuit has also approved of apportioning costs when each of the parties prevailed
23
MINUTE ORDER - 1
1 in part. See Williams v. Gaye, 895 F.3d 1106, 1133 (9th Cir. 2018) (concluding that the
district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding to one side the costs related to a
2 particular copyrighted song and awarding to the other side the costs associated with a
different copyrighted song). This practice is consistent with the Supreme Court’s
3 observation, in the civil rights context, that a lawsuit might involve “distinctly different
claims for relief that are based on different facts and legal theories,” in which event, the
4 “unrelated claims [must] be treated as if they had been raised in separate lawsuits.” See
Nat’l Org. for Marriage v. McKee, 42 F. Supp. 3d 225, 230 (D. Me. 2013) (alteration in
5 original, quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434–35 (1983)). With respect to
Ironburg’s additional assertion that Valve taxed costs it would have incurred even if the
6 only patent-in-suit had been U.S. Patent No. 8,641,525 (“the ’525 Patent”), the Court is
unpersuaded. As to the ’525 and ’770 Patents, discovery and motion practice occurred
7 concurrently, and Ironburg’s bill of costs reflects the same type of overlap between its
successful and unsuccessful claims. From the Court’s perspective, the respective cost
8 awards of $111,993.00 (or 70.5%) in favor of Ironburg and $46,744.01 (or 29.5%) in
favor of Valve are consistent with the taxable expenses related to the ’525 Patent and the
9 ’770 Patent, respectively. Ironburg is entitled to net costs in the amount of $65,248.99.
10
11
(2)
record.
The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of
Dated this 29th day of October, 2021.
12
Ravi Subramanian
Clerk
13
14
s/Gail Glass
Deputy Clerk
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?