CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS, INC. v. ALL-TAG SECURITY S.A. , No. 16-1397 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on June 5, 2017.
Download PDF
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.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-02223PBT, Judge Petrese B. Tucker. ______________________ ON MOTION ______________________ Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. NEWMAN, Circuit Judge. ORDER The appellees have filed an objection to Checkpoint’s Bill of Costs. 2 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 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
