In re Ricoh Co., Ltd. Patent Litig., No. 2011-1199, 2011 WL 5928689 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 23, 2011)
In this case, Ricoh sought review of the district court’s award of costs to Synopsys related to the parties’ use of Stratify (“a third-party electronic database service”) for the production of email. The appellate court concluded that the district court did not err in determining that costs related to the database could be recovered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4), but reversed the lower court’s award in light of the parties’ agreement to split the costs.
In the course of the underlying litigation, the parties were initially unable to agree on the form of production. Eventually, Ricoh suggested using Stratify, “a third party electronic database service,” and that the costs be divided between the parties. Synopsys agreed. After the case was resolved in favor of Synopsys, the district court awarded costs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920, including costs related to Stratify. On appeal, Ricoh argued that the district court erred in awarding such costs.
