Rimini Street Notches a Win Against Oracle at the U.S. Supreme Court

Pamela K. Fulmer

​Third party software services maintenance provider, Rimini Street, scored a victory today before the U.S. Supreme Court against its arch nemesis Oracle.  A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Justice Kavanaugh, has reversed the Ninth Circuit by ruling that the phrase “full costs” as used in the Copyright Act means only the 6 categories of costs authorized in the general federal costs statute, as codified at Sections 1821 and 1920 of Title 28.  Oracle had argued that the word “full” before the word “costs” meant that a court in awarding litigation expenses in a copyright case could award expenses beyond the ones mentioned in Sections 1821 and 1920, such as the costs of electronic discovery, expert witnesses and jury consultants.  In rejecting that argument, Justice Kavanaugh reasoned that “[t]he adjective “full” in §505 [of the Copyright Act] therefore does not alter the meaning of the word “costs.” Rather, “full costs” are all the “costs” otherwise available under law. The word “full” operates in the phrase “full costs” just as it operates in other common phrases: A “full moon” means the moon, not Mars. A “full breakfast” means breakfast, not lunch. A “full season ticket plan” means tickets, not hot dogs. So too, the term “full costs” means costs, not other expenses.”

The case is Rimini Street Inc. et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., case number 17-1625, at the Supreme Court of the United States.​  An interesting read is also Rimini's Third Amended Complaint against Oracle in the Rimini Street II litigation.