O
RACLE
’
S
R
ULE
50(
A
)M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 ORRICK, HERRINGTON &SUTCLIFFE LLPKAREN G. JOHNSON-MCKEWAN (SBN 121570) kjohnson-mckewan@orrick.com ANNETTE L. HURST (SBN 148738) ahurst@orrick.com GABRIEL M. RAMSEY (SBN 209218) gramsey@orrick.com 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Tel: 1.415.773.5700 / Fax: 1.415.773.5759 PETER A. BICKS (
pro hac vice
) pbicks@orrick.com LISA T. SIMPSON (
pro hac vice
) lsimpson@orrick.com 51 West 52
nd
Street, New York, NY 10019 Tel: 1.212.506.5000 / Fax: 1.212.506.5151 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (
pro hac vice
) dboies@bsfllp.com 333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504 Tel: 1.914.749.8200 / Fax: 1.914.749.8300 STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) sholtzman@bsfllp.com 1999 Harrison St., Ste. 900, Oakland, CA 94612 Tel: 1.510.874.1000 / Fax: 1.510.874.1460 ORACLE CORPORATION DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) dorian.daley@oracle.com DEBORAH K. MILLER (SBN 95527) deborah.miller@oracle.com MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (SBN 211600) matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com RUCHIKA AGRAWAL (SBN 246058) ruchika.agrawal@oracle.com 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065 Tel: 650.506.5200 / Fax: 650.506.7117
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE AMERICA, INC.Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC. Defendant. Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S RULE 50(a) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor Judge: Honorable William Alsup
Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1914 Filed 05/17/16 Page 1 of 30
- i -
O
RACLE
’
S
R
ULE
50(
A
)M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... iiMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY ................................................................... 1I.GOOGLE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR ONE ....................................... 1A.Google’s Use Is Entirely Commercial. ................................................................... 2B.Google’s Use Is Not Transformative. ..................................................................... 21.Google’s use does not fit within the statutory examples. ........................... 32.Android merely supersedes the Java Platform. ........................................... 43.Android’s declaring code and SSO, taken from Java SE, serve the same purpose when used in Java SE. .......................................................... 84.Google made no alteration to what it copied from Java SE. ....................... 9C.Google Copied In Bad Faith. ................................................................................ 10D.Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 13II.GOOGLE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR TWO .................................... 13A.The Java API Packages Are Highly Creative ....................................................... 14B.Google Has Not Shown Copying Was A Technical Necessity............................. 17C.Oracle Invested Heavily In Developing The Java API Packages
.
........................ 18III.GOOGLE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR THREE ................................. 18IV.GOOGLE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR FOUR ................................... 20A.Java SE And Android Compete In The Smartphone Market
.
............................... 21B.There Is No Evidence OpenJDK Caused Market Harm To Java SE
.
................... 22V.GOOGLE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN TO DEMONSTRATE CUSTOM ............... 23VI.
SEGA
AND
CONNECTIX
ARE NOT RELEVANT ........................................................ 25CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25
Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1914 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 30
- ii -
O
RACLE
’
S
R
ULE
50(
A
)M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Federal Cases
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................................................................4, 5, 8, 20
Am. Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc.
, 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994) ..........................................................................................................3
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music
,
Inc.,
510 U.S. 569 (1994) ..........................................................................................................4, 5, 21
Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.
, 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) .......................................................................................17, 20, 21
Elvis Presley Enters., Inc. v. Passport Video
, 349 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................10
Folsom v. Marsh
, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841) .............................................................................................6
Gaylord v. United States
, 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................................................................2
Harper & Row Publ’rs, Inc. v. Nation Enters.
, 471 U.S. 539 (1985) ..........................................................................................................
passim Itar-Tass Russian News Agency v. Russian Kurier, Inc.
, 886 F. Supp. 1120 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) ............................................................................................2
Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp.
, 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2002) .....................................................................................................19
L.A. News Serv. v. KCAL-TV Channel 9
, 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997) ...................................................................................................10
Micro Star v. Formgen Inc.
, 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998) ...............................................................................................9, 21
Monge v. Maya Magazines, Inc.
, 688 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2012) .....................................................................................1, 9, 19, 21
Morris v. Young
, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (C.D. Cal. 2013).......................................................................................2
Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc.
, 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .........................................................................................
passim
Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1914 Filed 05/17/16 Page 3 of 30