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.

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. New York

February 3, 2017

PPC BROADBAND, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CORNING OPTICAL COMMUNICATIONS RF, LLC, Defendant.

          FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Barclay Damon LLP., JOHN T. GUTKOSKI, ESQ., BELLA S. SATRA, ESQ., DOUGLAS J. NASH, ESQ., GABRIEL M. NUGENT, ESQ., JOHN D. COOK, ESQ., KATHRYN DALEY CORNISH, ESQ. MARK E. GALVEZ, ESQ.

          FOR THE DEFENDANT: Orrick, Herrington Law Firm, ANDREW D. SILVERMAN, ESQ., DANIEL A. RUBENS, ESQ., MARK S. DAVIES, ESQ., DLA Piper LLP, KATHRYN R. GRASSO, ESQ., STEPHEN J. GOMBITA, ESQ., JOSEPH P. LAVELLE, ESQ., ANDREW N. STEIN, ESQ., SUSAN N. ACQUISTA, ESQ., JERAULD E. BRYDGES, ESQ., ERIKA N.D. STANAT, ESQ.

          MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

          GARY L. SHARPE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff PPC Broadband, Inc. commenced this patent infringement action against defendant Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC. (Compl., Dkt. No. 1.) After a four-day trial, the jury found in favor of PPC. (Dkt. No. 358.) Subsequently, the court held a two-day bench trial on Corning's equitable defenses and found that Corning had not proven either defense. (Dkt. Nos. 513-14, 526.) The court also awarded PPC enhanced damages, supplemental damages, and pre-judgment interest. (Dkt. No. 526.) Judgment was entered against Corning in the amount of $61, 339, 316. (Dkt. No. 529.) PPC then filed a bill of costs seeking $121, 020.36. (Dkt. No. 538.) Pending are Corning's objections to the bill of costs. (Dkt. No. 539.) For the reasons that follow, the Clerk is directed to tax $90, 741.55 as costs.

         II. Standard of Review

         Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1) authorizes the recovery of costs by a prevailing party “[u]nless a federal statute, [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure], or a court order provides otherwise.” Recoverable costs are limited to those enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 1920, which sets out the following taxable 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 under section 1828 of this title.

See Whitfield v. Scully, 241 F.3d 264, 269-70 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 441 (1987)), abrogated on other grounds by Bruce v. Samuels, 136 S.Ct. 627 (2016). “[B]ecause Rule 54(d) allows costs ‘as of course, ' such an award against the losing party is the normal rule obtaining in civil litigation, ” thereby placing on the losing party the “burden to show that costs should not be imposed.” Id. at 270 (quoting Mercy v. Cty. of Suffolk, 748 F.2d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 1984)). Where a bill of costs is challenged, the reviewing district court exercises discretion and “decide[s] the cost question [it]self.” Id. at 269 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

         III. ...


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.