Jury Finds For Google In California Federal Copyright Infringement Action By Oracle Challenging Google's Use Of Java Code In Android Mobile Operating System
On Jan. 27, 2010, Oracle America, Inc. acquired Sun Microsystems, Inc. along with its Java platform. Oracle owned by assignment patents originally issued to Sun as well copyrights in materials that comprised the Java platform. Google Inc.'s Android competed with Java as an operating system and software development platform for mobile devices. Oracle alleged that the Android mobile operating system infringed Oracle's patents and Oracle's copyrights in the Java platform.
In an action commenced on Aug. 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oracle filed an Oct. 27, 2010 amended complaint against Google alleging claims for patent infringement and copyright infringement.
On Nov. 10, 2010, Google filed an answer, amended counterclaims, and defenses, including the defense that the copyright infringement claims were barred by thefair use doctrine.
After a jury trial, the jury found no patent infringement. Additionally, the jury found that Google infringed Oracle's copyrights in 37 Java Application Programmer Interface (API) packages as well as infringed "rangeCheck," a specific computer routine. The jury found noninfringement as to eight decompiled security files and deadlocked on the fair use defense. The court subsequently ruled on various motions and found, among other things, that the replicated elements of the 37 packages were not subject to copyright protection. The court entered judgment in favor of Google on Oracle's copyright infringement claims, except as to the rangeCheck code and the eight decompiled files.
On May 9, 2014, the appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, finding that the declaring code as well as the structure, sequence and organization of the 37 API packages were entitled to copyright protection. The appellate court instructed the court to reinstate the jury's finding of infringement as to the 37 packages and remanded for further consideration of the fair use defense.
The matter went to trial on the issue of whether Google's use of declaring code andstructure, sequence and organization of the 37 packages in Android constituted a fair use. After a jury trial presided over by District Judge William Alsup, the jury reached a verdict in favor of Google on May 26, 2016, finding that Google's use was a fair use under the Copyright Act.
Plaintiff Expert(s)
Prof. Adam Jaffe
Specialty: Economics
Dr. Iain Cockburn
Specialty: Damages
Dr. Steven Shugan
Specialty: Damages
James E. Malackowski
Specialty: Damages
Gwyn Firth Murray
Specialty: Licensing, Software
Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt
Specialty: Computer Science
Dr. Olivier Toubia
Specialty: Business Administration
Robert Zeidman
Specialty: Engineering
Dr. Rohit Chatterjee
Specialty: Management Consulting
Dr. Chris F. Kemerer
Specialty: Software
Defendant Expert(s)
Dr. Alan J. Cox
Specialty: Damages
Andrew Hall
Specialty: Licensing, Software
Owen Astrachan
Specialty: Technical Analysis
Dr. Gregory Leonard
Specialty: Economics
Dr. Roderic G. Cattell
Specialty: Computer Science
Dr. Itamar Simonson
Specialty: Damages
Other Expert(s)
Dr. James Kearl
Specialty: Damages
Plaintiff Counsel:
Karen G. Johnson-McKewan
Firm Name: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Address: San Francisco California
Annette L. Hurst
Firm Name: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Address: San Francisco California
Gabriel M. Ramsey
Firm Name: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Address: San Francisco California
Peter A. Bicks
Firm Name: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Address: New York New York
Lisa T. Simpson
Firm Name: Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
Address: New York New York
Dorian Daley
Firm Name: Oracle Corporation
Address: Redwood City California
Deborah K. Miller
Firm Name: Oracle Corporation
Address: Redwood City California
Matthew M. Sarboraria
Firm Name: Oracle Corporation
Address: Redwood City California
Ruchika Agrawal
Firm Name: Oracle Corporation
Address: Redwood City California
Defendant Counsel:
Robert A. Van Nest
Firm Name: Keker & Van Nest LLP
Address: San Francisco California
Christa M. Anderson
Firm Name: Keker & Van Nest LLP
Address: San Francisco California
Daniel Purcell
Firm Name: Keker & Van Nest LLP
Address: San Francisco California
Bruce W. Baber
Firm Name: King & Spalding LLP
Address: New York New York