Cbt Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partO’Malley, Circuit Judge
I agree with much of the majority’s thoughtful discussion of the scope of costs recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) and that the bulk of the costs awarded by the district court in this case are not recoverable thereunder. Clearly, the many and varied vendor services the majority categorizes as falling into “stage two” of its analysis cannot be characterized as “costs” under § 1920(4). Nor can the charges for the prior-art searches conducted on behalf of Return Path. I agree, accordingly, that the judgment deeming those items recoverable as “costs” must be reversed. I do not believe the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.Supreme Court of the United States · 2012
- Harris v. GarnerCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2000
- United States v. SissonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- 27 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1293, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,338 Dorothy Allen, Cross-Appellees v. United States Steel Corp., Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- National Broiler Marketing Ass'n v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.