Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., No. 16-1397 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 16-1397
Decided
August 31, 2017
Judge
Newman, J.
Document
Order on Motion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

ALL-TAG SECURITY S.A., ALL-TAG SECURITY

AMERICAS, INC., SENSORMATIC ELECTRONICS

CORPORATION, KOBE PROPERTIES SARL,

Defendants-Appellees

2016-1397

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in No. 2:01-cv-02223-PBT, Judge Petrese B. Tucker.

ON MOTION

Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

The appellees have filed an objection to Checkpoint’s Bill of Costs.

22 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 pending 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 supersedeas bond.” The record is otherwise. The record includes 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 appeal.”

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.

FOR THE COURT

August 31, 2017 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., No. 16-1397 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-16-1397-20170831
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-16-1397-20170831

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.