Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Charter Communications, Inc.
2:23-cv-00059
E.D. Tex.Jun 4, 2025Background
- Charter Communications obtained a unanimous jury verdict in its favor against Touchstream Technologies in a patent case.
- As prevailing party, Charter sought to recover costs via a Bill of Costs pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920.
- Touchstream conceded certain categories of costs but contested others, primarily costs for trial graphics, and aspects of printing/copying costs.
- The court needed to determine what categories and amounts of costs were properly taxable under the statute and circuit precedent.
- The key disputed costs were $123,837.50 for trial graphics and $51,084.08 for trial printing and copying, with other costs uncontested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Taxability of trial graphics | Graphics costs not enumerated in § 1920; not recoverable. | Graphics taxable given case complexity and circuit/local practice. | Not recoverable; not within § 1920 exemplification. |
| Taxability of printing/copying | Charter's descriptions vague; includes color, excess, and office supplies. | Costs reasonable; needed for court, counsel, and use at trial. | Only necessary copies recoverable; office supplies not. |
| Number of copies allowable | More than two copies exceed what court requires; not necessary. | Court, court reporter, witness, and counsel all need copies. | Only one copy per document is recoverable. |
| Taxability of office supplies | Office supplies are not taxable costs under § 1920. | Supplies taxed in past; needed for organization. | Office supply costs not recoverable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pac. Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (Supreme Court defines court's discretion on costs under Rule 54(d).)
- Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437 (Court may not tax costs not listed in § 1920.)
- Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (Defines approach to Rule 54(d)(1)'s "prevailing party" cost standard.)
- Fogelman v. ARAMCO, 920 F.2d 278 (Describes the standard for recovering copying costs under § 1920 in the Fifth Circuit.)
- Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125 ("Strong presumption" in favor of awarding costs to prevailing party.)