Legal Interpreter Services for IP Litigation
Eastern District of Texas Clarifies Limits on Cost Recovery of Legal Interpreter Fees in Patent Litigation
In a prior blog post, we discussed Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that a prevailing party may recover deposition interpreter fees, check interpreter fees, and even deposition interpreter cancellation fees—so long as those expenses were necessary and reasonable. The Court emphasized that interpreter compensation under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6) includes oral interpretation services used in depositions and at trial, distinguishing them from non-recoverable legal document translation fees. Because Motorola demonstrated the necessity of English-Mandarin interpreter services during depositions and trial preparation, and even the need for a Mandarin check interpreter due to disputed English-Chinese translation and interpretations, the Court awarded those costs—including for Mandarin interpreter services that were ultimately unused due to last-minute cancellations.
The Motorola decision highlights how courts evaluate court interpreter-related costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6), focusing on whether such expenses were both necessary and reasonable for the litigation. This same framework guided the court’s analysis in a more recent case, Staton Techiya, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 2:21-CV-00413-JRG, 2024 WL 3997820 (E.D. Texas, Aug. 29, 2024) where legal interpreter fees again became a point of contention. There, the court examined Samsung’s request for reimbursement of various legal interpreter-related expenses after it prevailed in a complex patent infringement suit.
In a patent infringement case where Samsung prevailed against Staton Techiya, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas partially granted Samsung’s Bill of Costs but limited recovery of court interpreter fees—disallowing costs for off-the-record communications and unused legal interpreter services, while approving legal interpreter expenses tied to witness testimony and in-court travel as necessary and compensable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).
The Court’s Consideration of Legal Interpreter Fees in Samsung v. Techiya
In the wake of a hard-fought patent infringement battle, Samsung filed an Opposed Motion for Entry of Bill of Costs after prevailing against Techiya. The court had previously determined that Techiya’s asserted patents were unenforceable due to unclean hands and entered judgment in Samsung’s favor, awarding costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1). While the judgment confirmed Samsung’s status as the prevailing party, it left open key questions about the scope of recoverable litigation expenses—particularly the limits on court interpreter-related fees.
Among the various disputed items in Samsung’s Bill of Costs, the legal interpreter fees drew heightened scrutiny from the Court. In an increasingly global litigation landscape where testimony by non-native English speakers often plays critical role, the Court’s treatment of legal interpreter costs offers important guidance on what is—and is not—recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).
Techiya’s Objections and the Legal Framework
Techiya did not dispute that Samsung prevailed in the litigation but challenged the breadth of Samsung’s cost request, asserting that the proposed recovery was excessive and that equitable considerations should limit Techiya’s responsibility. Among Techiya’s arguments was that legal interpreter fees should not be reimbursed, particularly when they involved witness preparation and communications that were not on the record.
The relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6), allows for the recovery of “[c]ompensation of interpreters” as a taxable cost. However, the statute does not define the scope of compensable interpreter services, leaving courts to determine—on a case-by-case basis—whether those expenses were “necessarily incurred in the case” or merely obtained for convenience. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 (2012), emphasized that such costs must be demonstrated as necessary, and courts in the Fifth Circuit have followed suit in applying this narrow construction.
Legal Interpreter Fees for Off-the-Record Communications: Not Compensable
Samsung sought reimbursement for legal interpreter costs incurred while preparing its witnesses for deposition and trial. These interactions occurred off the record and primarily involved interpreting of attorney-client communications. Samsung contended that because its witnesses were native Korean speakers, English to Korean legal interpreter services were necessary to ensure adequate witness preparation.
The Court rejected this claim, stating unequivocally that legal interpreter fees related to off-the-record conversations were not recoverable. The ruling emphasized that Samsung bore the burden of showing necessity and failed to do so. The Court drew a clear distinction between legal interpretation for formal proceedings—such as depositions and trial testimony—and private witness preparation sessions, which it viewed as falling outside the scope of recoverable expenses.
In doing so, the Court echoed the logic of Taniguchi and other federal cases which have denied cost recovery for ancillary litigation expenses that serve primarily to assist counsel rather than contribute directly to the court’s fact-finding process. The Court noted that Samsung’s legal interpreter costs during off-the-record prep appeared to be incurred more for counsel’s convenience than for the needs of the litigation process.
This portion of the ruling provides a cautionary note to litigants who assume that all foreign language support services will be reimbursed. The Court clarified that the mere fact that a witness is a non-native English speaker is not enough; the legal interpretation must occur in the context of formal proceedings and be demonstrably necessary to the presentation of the case.
Legal Interpreter Services for Witnesses Who Testified in English: A Mixed Outcome
Another nuanced issue arose where Samsung sought court interpreter fees for witnesses who ultimately testified in English. Techiya challenged these costs, arguing that legal interpretation services were unnecessary since the witnesses were sufficiently fluent to testify without a legal interpreter. In response, Samsung pointed out that while the witnesses were not native English speakers, the parties had agreed in advance to have legal interpreters available upon request. Samsung also noted that some of the witnesses made limited use of those interpretation services, demonstrating that the legal interpreters were, in fact, needed to facilitate full comprehension and accurate testimony.
The Court accepted this reasoning to a point. It held that legal interpreter costs were recoverable for witnesses who were not native English speakers, even if the witnesses ultimately used those services sparingly. The Court reasoned that the availability of legal interpretation services supported the truth-seeking function of trial and ensured witness comfort and accuracy in testimony.
However, the Court drew a boundary: legal interpreter costs would not be allowed for dates when the witnesses were not deposed or did not testify. Thus, any legal interpretation services used solely for background preparation or unused on the scheduled date would not be reimbursed.
This balanced ruling reflects an appreciation for the complexities of cross-cultural litigation while maintaining the statutory requirement of necessity. It also highlights the importance for prevailing parties to clearly document how and when legal interpreter services were used in a formal setting, rather than relying on general assumptions about foreign language needs of overseas party witnesses.
Travel Costs for In-Person Legal Interpreters: Approved as “Compensation”
Perhaps the most favorable outcome for Samsung regarding legal interpreter-related costs came in the form of the Court’s approval of $3,808.68 for court interpreter travel expenses. Techiya had argued that these costs were unjustified, especially since the relevant witnesses could have appeared via Zoom. But the Court was not persuaded.
The Court held that legal interpreter travel expenses to attend an in-person evidentiary hearing were compensable as part of the legal interpreter’s overall “compensation” under § 1920(6). The Court explained that in technical and highly specialized cases such as patent litigation, a skilled interpreter’s presence could be critical to ensuring accurate and nuanced interpretation.
Importantly, the Court rejected the idea that remote interpretation over video conferencing platforms was an adequate substitute, noting that live interpretation can be essential for understanding not just the content but the delivery and tone of a witness’s testimony. It further observed that “understanding only the general gist” of testimony was insufficient, especially when credibility and precision were at issue.
This aspect of the ruling reinforces that reasonable travel expenses tied directly to the legal interpreters’ in-court services are recoverable, provided they support the litigation process and are not excessive or duplicative.
Practical Guidance on Legal Interpreter Costs: Lessons from the Samsung v. Techiya Ruling
The Court’s decision on deposition interpreter fees in the Samsung v. Techiya litigation underscores several key takeaways for attorneys managing multilingual or cross-border cases:
1. Off-the-record legal interpreter costs are generally not recoverable – Even if deposition interpreters are crucial to preparing witnesses, courts are unlikely to award costs for services rendered outside formal proceedings. Counsel should assume such expenses will be borne as part of trial preparation.
2. Use of legal interpreters for English-speaking witnesses requires justification – Courts will look closely at the actual use of court interpreters and whether their presence was justified by the witness’s language needs. Agreements between parties about legal interpreter availability are helpful, but not determinative.
3. Travel costs for in-person legal interpretation are usually recoverable – When court interpreters attend hearings in person to assist with witness testimony, their travel expenses may be reimbursable, particularly in complex or highly technical cases.
4. Detailed documentation concerning the use of legal interpreters is critical – As with other types of costs, prevailing parties bear the burden of showing that legal interpretation services were necessarily incurred. Vague or blanket assertions will not suffice.
5. Strategic case management matters – Early case planning should include cost-benefit analyses regarding the use of legal interpreters, especially when parties know in advance that some witnesses may testify in English. Transparency with opposing counsel and agreement on protocols may help minimize disputes and avoid disallowances down the line.
In total, the Court approved Samsung’s recovery of $3,808.68 in court interpreter travel costs but disallowed reimbursement for off-the-record legal interpretation services and for dates when no testimony occurred. The ruling reflects a pragmatic approach, balancing the reality of modern litigation with the statutory requirement that taxable costs must be necessary and reasonable.
The Court’s handling of the legal interpreter fee dispute serves as a valuable guidepost for practitioners navigating similar issues. As globalization continues to shape the legal landscape, thoughtful and strategic use of deposition interpreters—backed by thorough documentation—will remain a critical component of effective and cost-conscious advocacy.
Get in touch with the international genealogy research and legal translation and interpreter services company All Language Alliance, Inc. to retain Mandarin deposition interpreters; Korean deposition interpreters; Japanese deposition interpreters; Thai deposition interpreters; German deposition interpreters; French deposition interpreters; Italian deposition interpreters, other foreign language deposition interpreters with experience in patent litigation cases.
#alllanguagealliance #legalinterpreter #depositioninterpreter #courtinterpreter #legalinterpreterservices #depositioninterpreterservices #courtinterpreterservices #legaltranslationservices
Up Next: Global Heirs, Local Rules: California Probate Notice Did Not Require Hague Service in Argentina