Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1007

Second MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Sections of Count VIII of Oracle's Amended Complaint filed by Google Inc.. Responses due by 5/14/2012. Replies due by 5/21/2012. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 4/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415 391 5400
Facsimile:
415 397 7188

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

13
14

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
GOOGLE’S SECOND MOTION FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON
SECTIONS OF COUNT VIII OF
ORACLE’S AMENDED COMPLAINT

GOOGLE INC.,

22

Defendant.

Dept.:
Judge:

Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup

23
24
25
26
27
28
GOOGLE’S SECOND COPYRIGHT JMOL
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
658220.01

1
I.
2
3
4

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, Google hereby moves for Judgment as a Matter of Law on

sections of Count VIII of Oracle’s Amended Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s request, Google
will file supplemental briefing in support of its motion on Tuesday, May 1.

5
II.
6
7
8
9
10

First, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the source code and object
code implementing the 37 API packages are not derivative works of Oracle’s specifications. As
explained in Google’s April 25, 2012 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Dkt. No. 984]
(“Apr. 25 JMOL”) at 2-3, Oracle’s derivative work claim is foreclosed by 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879).

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ARGUMENT

Second, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the method signatures are
not protected by copyright under both section 102(b) and the short words and phrases doctrine.
See Apr. 25 JMOL at 3-4; Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1524 n.7 (9th Cir.
1992).
Third, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that the alleged literal copying is
de minimis and thus non-actionable. See Apr. 25 JMOL at 4-6.
Fourth, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that its specifications for the 37
API packages do not infringe Oracle’s specifications. See Apr. 25 JMOL at 6-10.
Fifth, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Oracle’s claims based on
“direct code copying” relating to the rangeCheck code, the eight “Impl/ACL” test files and the
allegedly copied comments, as a result of Oracle’s failure to prove that either of the two copyright
registrations on which Oracle relies provides protection for or covers the individual files on which
those claims are based.
Sixth, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Oracle’s copyright claim as a
result of Oracle’s failure to prove the contents of the works that are the subject of the two
copyright registrations on which Oracle relies. See Apr. 25 JMOL at 10-11.
Seventh, to the extent Oracle has not already withdrawn with prejudice its “collective

28
1
GOOGLE’S SECOND COPYRIGHT JMOL
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
658220.01

1

work” argument, Google is entitled to judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement as to all

2

constituent elements of the registered works, because Oracle has failed to prove authorship of any

3

component parts of the works. See Apr. 25 JMOL at 11-12.

4

Google’s Rule 50 motion is based on this Motion, Google’s April 25th motion for

5

judgment as a matter of law and the evidence and authorities cited therein, the brief in support

6

and the evidence and authorities cited therein that the Court has directed Google to file in support

7

of this Motion, the entire trial record, and such argument as the Court allows on this Motion.

8

Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applies only to issues on which the jury is

9

being asked to render a verdict. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a)(1) (rule applies where “a party has been

10

fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have

11

a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue”). Google’s Rule 50

12

motion therefore does not address copyrightability or its equitable defenses—issues which are

13

reserved for the Court. To the extent that the Court concludes Rule 50 motions can be directed to

14

issues reserved to the Court (or such issues in combination with issues left for the jury), Google

15

further moves for judgment as a matter of law on Count VIII in its entirety on the grounds that (a)

16

the structure, sequence, and organization of the Java APIs is not protectable by copyright, and

17

Oracle has not carried its burden of proof as to the remaining parts of its claim, namely the

18

specifications and allegedly copied items (as referenced in the paragraphs beginning with “Third”

19

and “Fourth” above); and (b) Count VIII of the Oracle’s Amended Complaint is barred by

20

Google’s equitable defenses of laches, equitable estoppel, waiver, and implied license. Such

21

further motion is based on this Motion, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and

22

the evidence and authorities cited therein that the Court has directed Google to file on issues

23

reserved for the Court, the entire trial record, and such argument as the Court allows on this

24

Motion.
Dated: April 29, 2012

25
26

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
By:

27

/s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

28
2

GOOGLE’S SECOND COPYRIGHT JMOL
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
658220.01