O
RACLE
’
S
R
ENEWED
M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLPKAREN G. JOHNSON-MCKEWAN (SBN 121570)kjohnson-mckewan@orrick.comANNETTE L. HURST (SBN 148738)ahurst@orrick.comGABRIEL M. RAMSEY (SBN 209218)gramsey@orrick.com405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105Tel: 1.415.773.5700 / Fax: 1.415.773.5759PETER A. BICKS (
pro hac vice
) pbicks@orrick.comLISA T. SIMPSON (
pro hac vice
)lsimpson@orrick.com51 West 52
nd
Street, New York, NY 10019Tel: 1.212.506.5000 / Fax: 1.212.506.5151BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDAVID BOIES (
pro hac vice
)dboies@bsfllp.com333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504Tel: 1.914.749.8200 / Fax: 1.914.749.8300STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177)sholtzman@bsfllp.com1999 Harrison St., Ste. 900, Oakland, CA 94612Tel: 1.510.874.1000 / Fax: 1.510.874.1460ORACLE CORPORATIONDORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049)dorian.daley@oracle.comDEBORAH K. MILLER (SBN 95527)deborah.miller@oracle.comMATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (SBN 211600)matthew.sarboraria@oracle.comRUCHIKA AGRAWAL (SBN 246058)ruchika.agrawal@oracle.com500 Oracle Parkway,Redwood City, CA 94065Tel: 650.506.5200 / Fax: 650.506.7117
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONORACLE AMERICA, INC.Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.Defendant.Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
Date: August 18, 2016 at 8:00 a.m.Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor Judge: Honorable William Alsup
Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1993 Filed 07/06/16 Page 1 of 31
- ii -
O
RACLE
’
S
R
ENEWED
M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICEthat the following Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law will be heard on August18, 2016, at 8:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor of this Court, located at 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, the HonorableWilliam Alsup presiding.Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. will, and hereby does, move this Court for judgment as amatter of law under Rule 50(b) that Google’s copying of the declaring code and SSO of 37 JavaAPI packages was not a fair use. This Motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion; theMemorandum of Points and Authorities below; the materials attached to the Declaration of Matthew L. Bush (cited hereinafter as “Ex. __”) that are being filed herewith; the record in thismatter; and such other and further papers, evidence, and argument as may be submitted inconnection with this Motion.Dated: July 6, 2016 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLPBy:
/s/ Peter A. Bicks
Peter A. BicksCounsel for ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1993 Filed 07/06/16 Page 2 of 31
- iii -
O
RACLE
’
S
R
ENEWED
M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION........................................................................................iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .........................................................................................................ivMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITY ................................................................... 1I. GOOGLE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR ONE ....................................... 1A. Google’s Use Is Entirely Commercial.................................................................... 1B. Google’s Use Is Not Transformative. ..................................................................... 31. Android merely supersedes the Java Platform............................................ 32. The declaring code and SSO serve the same purpose in Android. ............. 53. Google’s arguments are legally irrelevant and factually inaccurate........... 6C. Google Copied In Bad Faith. .................................................................................. 8II. GOOGLE FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR TWO............................... 10A. The Java API Packages Are Highly Creative. ...................................................... 101. The declaring code is highly creative........................................................ 112. The structure, sequence, and organization is highly creative.................... 12B. Oracle Invested Heavily In Developing The Java API Packages
.
........................ 13III. GOOGLE HAS NOT MET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR THREE................................. 14A. Google Copied Qualitatively Important And Valuable Parts Of Java SE. ........... 14B. Google Copied A Quantitatively Significant Amount From Java........................ 15C. Google’s Copying Cannot Be Excused By Claims Of Necessity......................... 16D. Inter-System Consistency And Developer Expectations Are Irrelevant............... 18IV. GOOGLE FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN ON FACTOR FOUR............................. 21A. Android Directly Competed With Java SE And Its Derivatives........................... 21B. Android Competes With Java SE In The Market For App Developers................ 24C. Widespread Use Similar To Google’s Would Destroy Oracle’s Business........... 24D. There Is No Evidence OpenJDK Harmed Java SE Or Java ME
.
.......................... 25CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 25
Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1993 Filed 07/06/16 Page 3 of 31