*1 Before N EWMAN , L OURIE , and M OORE , Circuit Judges. N EWMAN , Circuit Judge.

O R D E R The appellees have filed an objection to Checkpoint’s Bill of Costs.

2 CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS , INC . v. ALL - TAG SECURITY S . A .

The appellees first state that the court did not award costs. That is incorrect, for the court’s Entry of Judgment stated: “Costs are taxable against the appellee in favor of the appellant under Rule 39.” This conforms with Federal Circuit Rule 39(a), which states that: “When the clerk of court provides notice of judgment or order disposing of an appeal, the clerk of court must advise which party or parties are entitled to costs.”

Federal Rule 62 states that “if an appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond,” and Federal Rule 39(e)(3) states that “premiums paid for a supersedeas bond or other bond to preserve rights pend- ing appeal” are “taxable in the district court to the benefit of the party entitled to costs under this rule.”

The appellees object to taxation of the premiums paid for such bond, stating that they “did not insist on a super- sedeas bond.” The record is otherwise. The record in- cludes an email from Sensormatic stating that “execution will begin in 14 days” and “if Checkpoint wishes to appeal, I am sure we would stipulate to the adequacy of a 120% Appeal Bond,” and Checkpoint’s response: “We will take you up on the latter offer since Checkpoint plans to ap- peal.”

On the record and in accordance with the Rules, Checkpoint is entitled to include in its taxable costs the premiums paid for the bond.

It is so ordered.

F OR THE C OURT August 31, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court