In Re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litigation, 661 F.3d 1361

Ricoh owned the '432 patent and sued Synopsys's customers for infringement; Synopsys filed a DJ action seeking noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability; the cases were consolidated in the ND Cal; the district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement for Synopsys in 2010; the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion; after judgment, Synopsys sought costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 totaling about $1.376 million, later adjusted to $938,957.72 by the district court; Ricoh appealed the cost award and this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
The district court conducted a Taxation Order approving $938,957.72 as costs, pending appeal; Ricoh challenged several categories of costs, including Stratify electronic discovery costs, copying costs, and deposition-related costs.
The district court allowed Stratify costs as exemplification/copy costs under § 1920(4); the court also allowed copying costs and deposition/interpreter costs, subject to documentation requirements.
Ricoh contends Stratify costs were not recoverable because Stratify was a document review database rather than production; Synopsys argues Stratify was used to produce documents electronically and falls within § 1920(4).
The court remanded for further consideration of copying costs due to inadequate documentation; it affirmed deposition costs and related interpreter fees, including videotaped deposition costs, as recoverable.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Stratify costs are taxable under §1920(4).	Synopsys argues Stratify was used for electronic production and is recoverable.	Ricoh asserts Stratify is a review database, not a production expense.	Stratify costs are not recoverable to Ricoh; cost-sharing agreement controls.
Whether copying costs totaling $322,515.71 were properly supported and taxable.	Synopsys contends costs were for documents produced for Ricoh and properly documented.	Ricoh argues invoices were inadequate to justify the amounts.	District court abused its discretion; remand for further documentation and possible estimate.
Whether deposition transcripts and interpreter costs are taxable.	Synopsys contends all deposition-related costs were reasonably necessary for trial preparation.	Ricoh argues only depositions used in the motion should be taxed; and may double-count video vs. written transcripts.	Costs for deposition transcripts and interpreter fees are taxable; inclusion of both video and written transcripts upheld.

Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (1987) (limits on costs under §1920 keep private contracts from expanding recoverable costs)
Monsanto Co. v. David, 516 F.3d 1009 (Fed.Cir.2008) (cost-shifting contracts may affect recoverable costs under §1920)
Thomas v. Duralite Co., 524 F.2d 577 (3d Cir.1975) (cost-sharing agreements can exclude certain charges from costs)
Summit Tech., Inc. v. Nidek Co., 435 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2006) (de novo review for eligibility of costs under §1920; abuse of discretion standard for awards)
Haagen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 920 F.2d 587 (9th Cir.1990) (document copies may be taxable even if not part of the record)
Tilton v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 115 F.3d 1471 (10th Cir.1997) (preparation and transcription costs for videotaped depositions may be taxable)
BDT Prods., Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 405 F.3d 415 (6th Cir.2005) (supports allowing costs for both written and video deposition transcripts)