Alivecor, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.

Background

After extensive litigation, including more than 30 depositions, expert testimony, cross-motions for summary judgment, and a record exceeding 15,000 pages, the court granted summary judgment for Apple. The court entered judgment for Apple on February 6, 2024. Apple later filed an application for a bill of costs. AliveCor filed an appeal and objected to the costs application.

Apple originally sought $132,445.64 for deposition-subpoena service, deposition transcripts, deposition exhibits, and deposition reporting services. After the parties met and conferred, Apple reduced its request. The Clerk of Court reviewed the application and determined that $80,983.10 was taxable. Neither party asked the court to review the Clerk’s determination.

Award of Costs

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) generally creates a presumption that allowable costs should be awarded to the prevailing party. The losing party must provide a sufficient reason to deny costs. The court may consider factors such as the losing party’s limited financial resources, misconduct by the prevailing party, the importance and complexity of the issues, the strength of the losing party’s case, and whether costs could discourage future civil-rights litigation. Federal law and the court’s local rule identify which litigation expenses may be taxed as costs.

AliveCor argued that the case involved issues of public importance and complex, difficult questions. The court rejected those arguments as insufficient. It said the case was fundamentally a dispute between AliveCor and Apple, and AliveCor had represented that it had sufficient means to pay the costs. The court also noted that AliveCor’s proposed antitrust market included at most three companies and that the court had resolved the claims using previously defined standards rather than a novel legal development.

The court agreed that the issues were close and difficult, but held that difficulty alone did not justify denying costs. It also found that the Clerk had properly addressed AliveCor’s objections to deposition-transcript and recording costs by substantially reducing them. The court therefore declined to refuse the cost award and found the Clerk’s taxation of costs proper.

Request to Pause Enforcement

AliveCor also asked the court to stay enforcement of the cost award without requiring a supersedeas bond while its appeal was pending. A stay pauses enforcement, and a supersedeas bond or alternative security generally protects the prevailing party during an appeal. The court recognized that it has discretion to waive the bond requirement in appropriate circumstances.

The court denied the request. Although AliveCor stated that it could pay the award, it provided no admissible evidence supporting that statement. AliveCor did not argue that the cost of a bond would be wasteful, and Apple objected that AliveCor had not sought its consent. The court found that AliveCor had not provided the types of financial information, assurances, or commitments that supported a no-bond stay in the case AliveCor cited.

Disposition

The court awarded Apple $80,983.10 in costs, as taxed by the Clerk, and denied AliveCor’s request for a stay of enforcement without a supersedeas bond.