The U.S. Supreme Court case Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2015 revolved around the issue of copyright law and its application to goods produced abroad but sold in the United States. Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai student studying in America, had family members buy cheaper versions of textbooks in Thailand which he then resold for profit in the U.S.. The publisher of these textbooks, John Wiley & Sons Inc., sued him for copyright infringement arguing that his actions violated their exclusive right to distribute their works. However, Kirtsaeng argued that under the "first-sale doctrine" - a legal concept allowing owners of copyrighted items to sell them without seeking permission from rights holders - he was allowed to do so since he legally bought those books. In this landmark decision by Justice Stephen Breyer, it was ruled 6-3 that once an item is purchased lawfully anywhere across globe (even if made overseas), it can be resold within US without violating American copyright laws; thereby upholding first-sale doctrine on international scale and providing significant implications for global trade and digital commerce.

In the dissenting opinion of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "full costs" under the Copyright Act. She argued that Congress did not intend to limit a court’s discretion in awarding costs by defining “full costs” as only those listed in sections 1821 and 1920. Instead, she believed that “full costs” should be interpreted more broadly to include all expenses incurred by a prevailing party, such as expert witness fees or e-discovery expenses which are not explicitly mentioned in these sections but can still constitute significant litigation expenditures. Furthermore, she pointed out that this narrow interpretation could lead to unfair results where copyright owners may be discouraged from litigating valid claims due to potential high litigation expenses they cannot recover even if they win their case.