DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) numbers atthetopsofdocuments. ECF No.1444.)Thedistrictjudgereferredthe cost basedonaninvoicethatsuggestedthere wasacreditfortheexpense.(MarvellMotion, 5.) Marvellmoves foranawardofcoststhetechnicalexpert;clerk’sofficedisallowed enforcement ofthecostspendingappeal.(USEI Motions,ECFNos.1433at5,143414,1445 under 28U.S.C.§1920.(USEIMotions,ECFNos. 1433,1434,and1445.)USEIalsoaskstostay Broadcom, , andAtheros,(2)certaincostsforHP,,Marvellarenottaxable that (1)thedefendants arenotentitledtocostsattributableclaims itsettledwithintervenors (Amended Judgment, ECFNo.1311) district courtenteredjudgment infavorof,andorde ______/ ACER, INC.etal, U.S. ETHERNETINNOVATIONS,LLC, Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page1of12 U.S.EthernetInnovations(“USEI”)isthelosi 1 CitationsaretotheElectronic CaseFile(“ECF”);pincitesaretotheECF-generated page v. Defendants. Plaintiff, UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT Northern DistrictofCalifornia 1 USEIchallengestheclerk’staxingofcostsongrounds San FranciscoDivision INTRODUCTION motions totheundersigned.(ECFNos.1435,1447.) ng partyinthispatentinfringement case.The red recoveryofcostsfor,theprevailingparties. [RE: ECFNos.1433,1434,1444,1445] ORDER TAXINGCOSTS No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) to Atherosaccusedproducts incorporatedintothedefendants’accusedproducts andhadthisclause: parties bearingtheirownfeesandcosts.(ECF 1289; Amended Judgment, ECFNo.1311.)USEIsettled withAtherosinApril2015,the Plaintiff U.S.EthernetInnovations,LLCtheircost judgment onDecember 2,2014intheirfavor,providingthat“[t]heseparties shallrecoverfrom to intervenorsIntel,Marvell,Atheros,and(notrelevant tothisorder)Sigma Designsand(2)entered 943 at2.)Thedistrictjudge(1)grantedsummary judgment inNovember 2014tothedefendantsand defendants totheextentthattheiraccusedproducts 943, 945(Nvidia).)TheNvidiadismissal coveredencompassed USEI’sclaims against the respectively, withthepartiesbearingtheirown ( Marvell , Inc., Atheros Communication, Inc.,andBroadcom Corporation,intervened. 1433, 1434,1444,and1445.)Chipsuppliers,includingIntelCorporation,Nvidia Order, ECFNo.1289at3;FirstAmended Comp (collectively, “”),andtheToshibaentities“”).( (collectively, “”),Gateway,Inc.,Hewlett-PackardCompany (“HP”),theSonyentities “Acer”), Apple,Inc.,theAsusentities(coll including thefollowing defendants implicated bythecostmotions: theAcerentities(collectively, trial judgenolaterthantwoweeksafterthecourtentersitsfinalordertaxingcosts. denies themotion tostayexecutionofthecostsw costs fortheintervenorsandothercomputer defendantssetforthattheendofthisorder,and(4) September 11,2015,(2)reducescertainelectronicdiscoverycostsforHPandIntel,(3)taxesthe Acer, ,HP,Sony,andToshiba,directsthem tosubmit theirrevisedcostsnolaterthan See Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page2of12 USEI settledwithintervenorsBroadcom andNvidiainDecember 2013andJanuary2014, USEI suedcomputer manufacturers forinfringi The court(1)eliminates costsattributabletotheAtherosdepositionsforcomputer defendants counterclaims andaffirmative defenses pendingbetweenUSEIandtheAtheros OEM For theavoidanceof doubt,thisstipulationshall Summary Judgment Order,ECFNo.1289at4;Nos.224,233,265,475.) STATEMENT ectively, “Asus”),DellInc.,theFujitsuentities No. 1375.)Thedismissal includedclaims attributable 2 fees andcosts.(ECFNos.929,932(Broadcom), laint (“FAC”),ECFNo.214;Motions,Nos. ithout prejudicetoUSEI’srefilingitbeforethe have no[e]ffect orimpact onanyotherclaims, s ofaction.”(Summary Judgment Order,ECFNo. ng itspatentsrelatedtoethernettechnology, usedtheinfringingNvidiatechnology.(ECFNo. See Summary Judgment UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 may awardunderRule53(d)tothefollowing: v. PackagingCorp.ofAmerica “diminished award[s]”andsometimes resultindenyingoftaxablecostsaltogether. JCS, 2006WL 6338914,at*3(N.D.Cal.Aug.23,2006).Inflatedcostssometimes resultin of S.Cal. other groundsby 592; modest means, andwhetherthecasepresentedalandmark issue ofnationalimportance. whether theissuesincasewerecloseordifficult, achillingeffect oncivilrightsplaintiffs of bad-faith practices),anominal recovery,alosing denying costsincludesome impropriety onthe partoftheprevailingparty(includingmisconduct or Association ofMexican-Am.Educators, costs. overcoming thepresumption byaffirmatively showingthattheprevailingpartyisnotentitledto Am. Educatorsv.StateofCal “creates apresumption infavorofawardingcoststoaprevailingparty.” attorney’s fees–shouldbeallowedtotheprevailingparty.”Fed.R.Civ.P.54(d)(1).Thisrule ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) ( Id. Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page3of12 at2-3.) (4) Feesforexemplification andthecosts ofmaking copiesofanymaterials wherethecopies (3) Feesanddisbursements forprinting andwitnesses; case; (2) Feesforprintedorelectronicallyrecordedtranscripts necessarilyobtainedforuseinthe (1) Feesoftheclerkandmarshal; Unless otherwiseauthorizedbystatuteorcontr A districtcourthasdiscretiontodenycosts,butitmust specifyitsreasons fordoingso. “Unless afederalstatute,theserules,orcourtorderprovidesotherwise,costs–otherthan to networkingtechnologyof suppliersotherthanAt Defendants, includinganyclaims, counterclaims Atheros OEMDefendants[’] productsthatareaccusedof infringement inthisaction. see alsoQuanv.ComputerSciencesCorp. See SaveOurValleyv.SoundTransit , 178F.3d1069,1079(9thCir.1999);

Fifth ThirdBancorpv.Dudenhofer, ., 231F.3d572,591(9thCir.2000).Thelosingpartyhastheburdenof , 898F.Supp.625,629(N.D.Ill.1995). GOVERNING LAW 231 F.3dat591-92.Examples ofreasonsthatsupport , 335F.3d932,944-45(9thCir.2003). CompetitiveTechs.v.FujitsuLtd. , 623F.3d870,888-89(9thCir.2010), party’s indigenceorlimited financialresources, 3 act, 28U.S.C.§1920limits thecoststhatacourt and affirmative defenses baseduponorrelating heros whichisorwasincorporatedintothe 134 S.Ct.2459(2014); Association ofMexican- Stanley v.University , No.C02-1673 See, e.g. abrogatedon See id. , Jansen at UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) claims, (3)made noeffort toapportionitscostsandthusoverstated costs,and(4)shouldhaveits by stipulationwithBroadcom andNvidia,(2)thusisnotentitledtocostsassociated withdismissed entitled tocostsattributableclaims thatitsettledwithintervenorsBroadcom, Nvidia,andAtheros. action.” (Amended Judgment, ECF No.1311at2.)USEIarguesthatthedefendantsandIntelarenot specifically thatthey“shallrecoverfrom Plain I. THEDEFENDANTSAREPREVAILINGPARTIES to taxcostsforthetechnicalexpert.(Motion,ECFNo.1444.) be stayedpendingappeal.(Motions,ECFNo.1433,1434,1445)Marvellchallengestheclerk’sfailure (III) whetherMarvellisentitledtocostsfor certaindepositiontranscripts,and(IV)whethercostsmay settled claims, (II)whethercertaincostsawardedtoHPandIntelareallowableexemplification costs, Francisco UnifiedSchoolDist. 1248-49 (10thCir.2002)).Thecourtreviewsdenovotheclerk’staxationofcosts. WL 177566,at*1(N.D.Cal.Jan.23,2012)(quoting entitled.’” the partyseekingcosts.toestablishamount ofcompensable costsandexpensestowhichitis must beattachedtothebillof costs.” incurred, andareallowablebylaw”“[a]ppropriatedocumentation tosupporteachitem claimed L.R. 54-1(a).Apartyseekingcostsmust providean Civil LocalRule54-3providesguidanceregardingthetaxablecostsineachcategory. Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page4of12 As todefendant Fujitsu,USEIarguesthatFujitsu(1)didnotprevailonclaims thatweredismissed The districtcourtenteredsummary judgment infavor ofthedefendantsandIntel,stating USEI challenges(I)whetherthedefendants areentitledtorecovercoststhatattributable A billofcosts“must stateseparatelyandspecificallyeachitem oftaxablecostsclaimed.” Civ. expenses, andcostsofspecialinterpretationservicesundersection1828thistitle. (6) Compensation ofcourtappointedexperts,compensation ofinterpreters,andsalaries,fees, (5) Docketfeesundersection1923ofthistitle;[and] are necessarilyobtainedforuseinthecase; City ofAlamedav.NuveenMun.HighIncomeOpportunityFund , 385F.Supp.2d.981,1001(N.D.Cal.2005). Id . “With regardtoindividualitemized costs,‘theburdenison ANALYSIS tiff U.S.EthernetInnovations,LLCtheircostsof 4 affidavitsayingthatthecostswere“necessarily Allison v.BankOne-Denver , No.C08-4575SI,2012 , 289F.3d1223, See Lopezv.San UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) (USEI argues)thecourtshouldreduceAcer’scostsby60%.( chips from fivemanufacturers, threearefrom At costs toreflect thepercentageattributabletosettledclaims. ( including Intel(all)andMarvell(allbutDell).( Toshiba), andNvidia(allbutSony).( show thattheyhavechipsfrom Atheros(allbutApple,,andFujitsu),Broadcom (allbutSonyand account forsettledclaims. (Motion,ECFNo.1434at8.) issue.” ( these agreements. USEIseeksresolutionof theissuehere,toavoidfurther litigationontheparticular attributable toclaims thatweresettled,then“Fujitsu,Nvidia,andBroadcom wouldbeinbreachof costs reducedby50%.(Motion,ECFNo.1433at3-4.) litigation –thatthestipulated dismissals donota and areentitledtotheirtaxable costs.Thecourtisconvinced–basedon its familiarity withthe No. 1440at9-12;FujitsuOpposition,ECF1441 at3-5.) and (4)theyareprevailingpartiesasamatter oflaw.(Intervenors’ andDefendants’Opposition,ECF percentages forSonybasedonAtheroswhen waslessthan1%oftheaccusedSonyproducts); supplied equalamounts ofaccusedchips,resultinginskewednumbers (forexample, byapplying settlement), (3)USEI’spercentagesarebasedonfalseassumptions thattheintervenorsuppliers (for example byreducingDell’scosts66%eventhoughmost ofthedepositionshappened after Nvida settledearlyanddidnotimpact costs,andUSEInonethelessapportionscostsbasedonthem USEI hasnotshownanycoststhatwouldhavebeenincurredbutfor settlement; (2)Broadcom and and Defendantcorporatedepositions),document productionwasnotimpacted byintervenors,and (such asclaims construction,expertdepositions, Toshiba –50%.( reductions asfollows:Apple–40%;Asus50%;Dell66.67%;HPSony25%;and Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page5of12 As tothedefendantsandintervenorIntel,USEIsimilarly arguesthecostsmust bereducedto The districtcourtalreadyfoundthatthedefendant The defendantsrespondasfollows:(1)most orallofthecostswouldhavebeenincurredanyway Id. at4n.2.) Id. at8-9.) Id. ) Thechartshowstheotherchipsinaccusedproducts, Id. heros, Broadcom, andNvida,3/5is60%,thus ffect thisdetermination. Except fortheelectronic inventor depositions,USEIcorporate 5 ) USEIthenassertsthatthecourtshouldreduce s andintervenorIntelaretheprevailingparties It assertsthatifthecourtallowscosts Itchartsthedefendants’accusedproductsto Id. Id. ) Forexample, Acer’sproductshave ) Themath fortherestworksoutto UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) apportioning costs. of fiveitschipsmanufacturers areBroadcom assuming itisright,itsformula –forexample, reducing Acer’scostsbythree-fifthsbecausethreeout done thatoraddresseditsburdenasthelosingparty. 2013). Butthepartiesbearcollectiveresponsibility forestablishingthelegalframework. USEIhasnot eBay Inc.v.KeloraSys.,LLC itemizing costswithsufficient particularitytoestablishthattheyaretaxableundersection1920. defendants must showcostsareallowableunder arguing onlythatitisthedefendants’ burdentoestablishtheirentitlement tocosts.Of coursethe apportionment shouldbemade. USEIcitesno authoritytosupportitsargument forapportionment, appears onthisrecordtobeAtheros’s(relatively)modest stakeinthislitigation,what–ifany same forBroadcom evenmore easily:itissilentastotheresultforcomputer defendants. Moreover, itisadismissal withprejudice, andthedefendantsareprevailingparties.Theresultis (the reasonforinterveninginthefirstplace)anddoesnotrequireanywaiverofcostsbythem. dismissal ofclaims againstthecomputer defenda about anyeffectonfeesandcostsattributabletothem. ( accused products.( computer defendantstoextentthatNvidia’saccu 1415-16 (Fed.Cir.2004).Here,theNvidiadismissal encompassed allclaims byUSEIagainstthe with prejudiceisaprevailingparty. Circuit, thedismissal ofaclaim withprejudiceisajudgment onthemerits, andthepartydismissed Intervenors’ andDefendants’Opposition,ECF advanced bythedefendantsandIntelintheiroppositiontoUSEI’smotion. regardless of thedismissals of threeof theinte relatively modest. Thecourt’sdetermination isthatallofthecostswouldhavebeenincurred, discovery costsattributabletoHPandIntel(anissueaddressedinthenextsection),are Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page6of12 Atheros isdifferent:theindividualdefendantssi Intel pointsoutthatthedismissals withprejudicemakes thedefendantsprevailingparties.( See ECF Nos.943,945.)Thedefendantsdidnotsignthedismissal, anditissilent , No.C10-4947CW (LB),2013WL 1402736,at*3(N.D.Cal.Apr.3, See

Power MosfetTechn.,L.L.C.v.SiemensAG rvening chipmanufacturers, forallofthereasons No. 1440at10-11&nn.18,21.)IntheFederal , Nvidia,andAtheros–is tooroughaproxyfor section 1920andbylaw.Generally,thatmeans sed technologywasincorporatedintothedefendants’ nts reflectsonlyasuppliercoveringitscustomers 6 gned thatdismissal. Thequestionis,givenwhat See See

Save OurValley ECFNo.943.)Thecourtthinksthatthe , 335F.3dat944-45.Even , 378F.3d1396, See See UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) determining which arerelevant. copying documents includethecosts of collectingdocuments, reviewingthosedocuments, and discovery documents when usedforanypurposeinthecase.”Civ.L.R.54-3(d)(2).Taxablecostsof costs undersection1920(4). costs ofcopiespapers.”Thatamendment make amended section1920 in 2008tosubstitute“thecostsofmaking copiesofanymaterials” for“the copies ofanymaterials wherethecopiesarenecessarilyobtainedforuseincase.”Congress them. (Motion,ECFNo.1434at10.) electronic discoveryaretaxableandthatthecourt II. TAXABLECOSTSFORELECTRONICDISCOVERY:HPANDINTEL necessarily incurred. September 8, 2015.Thecourtdirectsthem todosonolaterthanSeptember 11,2015. at 8.)Atthehearing,theysuggestedthat parties atthehearing,andaffectedcomputer defendantsdidnotobjecttoit. 591-92 (courtmust specifyreasonsfordenyingcosts).Thecourtdiscussedthisoutcome withthe defendants toanylarger-scalewaiverofcosts. Atheros andnotapportionabletoitinanyevent,(4)therecorddoessupportasign-onby document production,andelectronicdiscoverycosts)wereincurredinthelitigationregardlessof defendants andnothingmore, (3)theothercosts(attributable toclaims construction,depositions, summary judgment, (2)thedismissal appears(likeNvidia’s)tobeaprotectionoftheconsumer attributable tothedepositionsforAtheros.Thereasonsare(1)Atherosdismissal happenedafter Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page7of12 The localruleinterpretsthestatutetoprovide Under 28U.S.C.§1920(4),thecourtmay tax“[f]eesforexemplification andthecostsofmaking A. TaxableCostsforElectronicDiscovery USEI assertsthatHPandInteldidnotprovide In thenextsections,courtaddresseswhetherspecificcostsforHP,Intel,andMarvellwere The affecteddefendantsareAcer,Asus,HP,Sony,andToshiba.( On thisrecordandlegalargument, thecourt–inexerciseof itsdiscretion–willsubtractcosts See id. Parrish v.Manatt,Phelps &Phillips,LLP couldsubmit thedefendants’individualcostsby See s theelectronicequivalentofpaperscompensable “[t]he costofreproducingdisclosureorformal sufficientdocumentation thattheircostsfor 7

thus shoulddisallowalloftheircostsorreduce Association ofMexican-Am.Educators, See USEIMotion,ECFNo.1434 , No.C10-03200WHA, 231 F.3dat UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 or insteadaresolelyfor the convenienceofcounsel. are taxableturnsonwhether theyarepartofmaking copies“necessarily obtainedforuseinthecase” paper-document analogue. Determining whatcostsaretaxablerequirescommon-sense judgments guidedbyacomparison witha Resnick v.Netflix,Inc. WL 1402736.Sincethattime, theNinthCircuitaddressedtaxablecostsforelectronicdiscoveryin 01714 WHA (LB),2012WL 6761576(N.D.Cal.Oct.23,2012); certain expensesaretaxablecostsandnot. section 1920(4).Theundersignedpreviouslyanalyzedtheissueintwocasesanddetermined that attributable to“intellectualeffort”involvedin to “exemplification andthecostsofmaking copies”(andnotfortheparties’convenienceor ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) Holman ConsultingCorp. intellectual effortinvolvedintheirproduction”), (“fees arepermitted onlyforthephysicalpreparationandduplicationofdocuments, notthe Sept. 4,2012)(citationomitted); taxable costs. preparation ofdocuments (asoppose[d]tothecostsofphysicallypreparing thedocuments)” –arenot production ofdiscovery–including“theresearch,analysis,anddistillationdataincurredinthe convenience andthereforenon-compensable). Simila Techs. Intel Corp. & TrustCo.ofChicago because theyarenot“necessarily”obtainedforuseinthecase. example, copiesmade solelyforcounsel’sconvenienceorthelitigant’sownusearenotrecoverable nonetheless aretaxable).Notallcostsattributab 2011 WL 1362112,at*2(N.D.Cal.Apr.11,2011)(theprocessofteniscostlybutthecosts Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page8of12 Not allcostsleadinguptotheproductionofelectronic discoveryarecompensable. The issuehereiswhatkindsofcostsattribut , 2006WL 6338914,at*8(findingthatmultiple setsofcopiesweremade forthe attorney’s , No.C05-01766RMW, 2009WL 5114002,at*4(N.D.Cal.Dec.18,2009); Oracle Am.v.,Inc. , 779F.3d914,929-30(9thCir.2015). , 38F.3d1429,1441(7thCir.1994); , 929F.2d1158,1363(9thCir.1990)(enbanc). Id. at929(quotationomitted). Theinquiry accord

Romero v.Pomona , No.C10-03561WHA, 2012WL 3822129,at*3(N.D.Cal. document production)suchthattheyaretaxableunder le toproducingdiscoveryarerecoverable.For able toproducingelectronicdiscoveryareanalogous overruled inpartonothergrounds 8 Id. rly, “intellectualefforts”involvedinthe See Plantronics,Inc.v.Aliph,

, 883F.2d1418,1428(9thCir.1989) Computer CacheCoherencyCorp.v. Haroco, Inc.v.AmericanNat’lBank eBay Inc.v.KeloraSys.,LLC aboutwhatelectronicprocesses

Id. Townsend v. , No.C09- Competitive at928. , 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 record andargument before it, thecourtconcludesthatHPdidnotestablish that thecostsin Relativity (coststhatIntel excluded),anddoesnotawardcostsforprocessing data.Basedonthe and “LoadFilePreparation”datainto Relativity.”(Motion,ECFNo.1434at10.) data processing(designatedas“DataProcessing,” share) hadmore todo.Giventhesizeoflitigation,costsoverallseem reasonable. more accusedproducts,producedmore deponents,andbasically(becauseofitssize itsmarket defendants). (Motion,ECFNo.1434at11-12.)HP’s argument thatitshoulddisallowthecostsasexcessive(compared tocostsincurredbyother processes necessarytopreservemetadata forproductioncouldbecompensable). (citations omitted); compensable “intellectualeffort”suchasorgani such asTIFFcompensable anddistinguishing WL 1402736,at*7(holdingthatmaking computer datar ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) be compensable iftheyarepartofthenecessaryeffortstomake information readable. distillation of data. to “intellectualeffort”involvedintheproductionofdocuments ortheresearch,analysis,and holding thattheyarenon-taxablecostseither(a)fortheconvenienceofpartiesor(b)akin See eBay drives, orthumb drives),anddoingbasicdocument organizationsuchasslipsheetsforpagebreaks. generating blowbacks),Batesstamping, puttinginformation onmedia (suchasDVDs,CDs,hard converting nativefilestoreadable(includingopticalcharacterrecognition(“OCR”)and obtained foruseinthecase.” compensable as“exemplification and...copiesofanymaterials wherethecopiesarenecessarily Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page9of12 The courtawardscostsforloadfilepreparation, does notawardcostsforloadingdatainto USEI doesnotobjecttocategoriesofcoststhatthe courtawardedin B. HP The courtturnsnowtoananalysisofthecost Applying thisapproach,theundersignedpreviouslydesignatedcategoriesthatitdeemed , 2013WL 1402736,at*7.Thecourtdidnotawardcostsforcollectionanddataprocessing, Id. see also ; Plantronics

Resnick See 28U.S.C.§1920(4).Thecategoriesincludescanningand , 2012WL 6761576, , 779F.3dat929-30(decliningtoawardcostsforuploadingdata; other gatheringandprocessingcostsasnon- zing, searching,andanalyzingdiscoverydocuments) s. Preliminarily, thecourtdisposesofUSEI’s “Processing,”and“DataProcessing;Exporting”) 9 productionalsocovered3Com, andIntelhad

at *13-15(analyzingcases).Some costsmight eadable iswhatallowsconversiontoformats eBay andinsteadobjectsto See eBay , 2013 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) following chartsarecompensable costs: icvred n.N.31/4$175.00 $43.75 3/10/14 $175.00 $87.50 Cost $87.50 TOTAL $175.00 3/3/14 DiscoverReady Inv.No. $87.50 2/20/14 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14030075 $131.25 2/19/14 Date DiscoverReady Inv.No.14020009 $87.50 2/20/14 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14020009 $87.50 1/31/14 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14020009 $87.50 1/30/14 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14010152 11/5/13 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14010152 10/1/13 DiscoverReady Inv.No.13110048 9/30/13 DiscoverReady Inv.No.13100010 9/30/13 $43.75 DiscoverReady Inv.No.13090042 $7.50 DiscoverReady Inv.No.13090042 $87.50 Item $87.50 $87.50 3/6/14 Cost $29.00 TOTAL 2/20/14 $17,512.00 $78.50 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14030075 2/20/14 $1,616.00 $36.00 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14020009 2/19/14 $8,068.00 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14020009 1/31/14 $41,140.00 Date DiscoverReady Inv.No.14020009 9/30/13 10/31/10 DiscoverReady Inv.No.14010152 4/30/13 9/30/10 DiscoverReady Inv.No.13090042 4/30/13 8/31/10 DiscoverReady Inv.No.13040041 7/31/10 DiscoverReady Inv.No.13040041 ACT Inv.No.21010030 ACT Inv.No.21009013 ACT Inv.No.21008031 ACT Inv.No.21007024A Item Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page10of12 HP ElectronicDiscoveryCostsforLoadingDataintoRelativity HP ElectronicDiscoveryCostsforDataProcessing 10 $1,225.00 $68,793.25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the courtdeniesmotion withoutprejudicetoUSEI’sraisingitbeforethetrialjudge. Opposition, ECFNo.1440at8.)Asdiscussed thehearing,andwithagreement oftheparties, Eastern DistrictofTexas,ajuryfoundtwothe resolved theissueinconflictingways.(Motions, ECFNos.1433at5,143414,14455.)Inthe on thegroundthatithasastronglikelihoodofprev IV. MOTIONTOSTAY motion tostaytheexecutionofcostspendingappeal.Thecourtthustaxes thesecosts. costs disputeandagreedthatthetaxableamount was$110,095.47,whichisstillsubjecttoUSEI’s III. TAXABLECOSTSFORMARVELL Intervenors’ andDefendants’Opposition,ECFNo.1440at16.) specific productionsandaretaxable.Thecour Ex. A,ECFNo.1440-1.)Intelhasestablishedsufficientlythatitsremaining costsaredirectlytiedto withdrew $44,210.17from itsrequestforeDiscovery costs.(Opposition,ECFNo.1440at13-14& ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page11of12 USEI moves to staytheexecutionofcosts(orforarulingthatitmay postabondof50%orless) At theSeptember 3,2015hearing,USEIandMarvellsaidontherecordthattheyhadsettledtheir The courtgrantsinpartand deniesinpartUSEI’smotions. USEI objectedtoIntel’sprocessingcosts.(Motion,ECFNo.1434at12-13.)Inresponse,Intel C. Intel The resultthusisasfollows: ot ae yCek$173,027.14 ($70,018.25) Total Taxed Costs Less TotalDisallowedCosts Costs TaxedbyClerk $1,225.00 Total Disallowed Costs $68,793.25 Disallowed LoadCosts Disallowed ProcessingCosts Category

Costs $103,008.89 $70,018.25 CONCLUSION t thustaxesIntel’srequestedcostsof$251,137.44. 11 four accusedpatentsinthiscasenotinvalid.(Intel ailing onappealgiventhattwodistrictshave

( See UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ORDER (No. 4:10-cv-03724-CW (LB)) ______September 4,2015 Dated: costs fortheAtheros-implicated defendants. judge. USEImust fileitsmotion nolaterthantwo weeksafterthecourtissuesitsfinalordertaxing and submit aproposedordertaxingcoststhatincludesthisfilled-outchart. 11, 2015.BySeptember 11,2015,theymust submit thecostsattributabletoAtherosdepositions Asus, HP,Sony,andToshiba,directsthem tosubmit theirrevisedcostsnolaterthanSeptember Case 4:10-cv-03724-CWDocument1462Filed09/04/15Page12of IT ISSOORDERED. This disposesofECFNos.1433,1434,1444,and 1445. The courtdeniesUSEI’smotion tostaywithoutprejudiceUSEI’sfiling itbeforethedistrict The courttaxesthefollowingcostsforotherdefendantsandintervenors: The courtreducescostsattributabletotheAtherosdepositionsforcomputer defendantsAcer, avl $110,095.47 $251,137.44 $22,078.83 $36,918.85 Marvell $67,823.86 Intel Fujitsu Dell Apple Final Costs Prevailing Party $62,870.71 $4,314.50 $25,532.74 Toshiba Sony $103,008.89 Hewlett-Packard $34,038.37 Asus Acer/Gateway Clerk’s Costs Prevailing Party Taxed Taxed Atheros Costs Minus United StatesMagistrateJudge LAUREL BEELER 12 Taxed Final Costs