Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: May 14, 2026
• Docket: 3:13-cv-00628
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 APPLICATIONS IN INTERNET TIME, Case No. 3:13-cv-00628-MMD-CLB LLC, 7 ORDER Plaintiff, 8 v.

9 SALESFORCE, INC.,

10 Defendant. 11 This patent infringement action was dismissed without prejudice on March 28, 12 2025, by the Court’s order granting Defendant Salesforce, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for 13 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 471.)1 Before the Court is Defendant’s Bill of 14 Costs. (ECF No. 475.) Plaintiff filed an Objection to Bill of Costs (ECF No. 477 15 (“Objection”)) and Defendant responded (ECF No. 478 (“Response”)). For the reasons 16 explained herein, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s Objection. 17 The parties dispute whether Defendant is a “prevailing party” under Federal Rule 18 of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). Plaintiff argues in essence that Defendant is not a prevailing 19 party because the Court dismissed the action without prejudice, which does not constitute 20 a dismissal on the merits for the purpose of awarding costs. (ECF No. 477 at 2.) 21 Defendant counters in its Response that Federal Circuit precedent forecloses this 22 argument. (ECF No. 478 at 2.) 23 The Court agrees with Defendant that it is the prevailing party. First, a decision on 24 the merits is not necessary to find prevailing party status. See, e.g., Raniere v. Microsoft 25 Corp., 887 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (affirming award of costs to prevailing party where 26 27 1Plaintiff Applications in Internet Time LLC filed a motion for reconsideration (ECF 28 No. 476) which the Court denied (ECF No. 481). Plaintiff subsequently appealed both orders (ECF Nos. 471, 481) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 1 || case was dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing); B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Facebook, 2 || Inc., 940 F.3d 675 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (affirming award of costs to prevailing party where 3 || claims were dismissed without prejudice for mootness); see also Alt. Petroleum Techs. 4 || Holdings Corp v. Grimes, No. 3:20-cv-00040-MMD-CLB, 2022 WL 3718863 (D. Nev. July 5 || 25, 2022) (granting costs to prevailing party-defendant where case was dismissed without 6 || prejudice for lack of standing). Moreover, the Court finds that Defendant is the prevailing 7 || party, notwithstanding that the action was dismissed without prejudice, because 8 || Defendant expended significant time and resources litigating this case for nearly ten 9 || years, preventing Plaintiff from “achieving a material alteration of the relationship between 10 || them.” B.E. Tech, 940 F.3d at 679. The Court will therefore overrule Plaintiff's Objection? 11 || and enter costs in favor of Defendant in the amount of $44,261.70.° 12 The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several 13 || cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and 14 || determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the 15 || issue before the Court. 16 It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Objection to Bill of Costs (ECF No. 477) is 17 || overruled. 18 It is further ordered that Defendant is entitled to costs in the amount of $44,261.70. 19 The Clerk of Court is directed to tax costs and enter judgment in favor of 20 || Defendant. 21 DATED THIS 14" Day of May 2026. 22

24 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ?Plaintiff previously requested deferral of the award of costs while its motion for 26 || reconsideration was pending. (ECF No. 477 at 2-3.) However, the appeal of the dismissal 37 was subsequently affirmed, rendering this request moot. (ECF No. 488.) 3Plaintiff challenges only whether Defendant is the prevailing party and does not 28 || object to the reasonableness of the items.