Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1008

Statement OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA INC.'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS RULE 50(A) MOTION AT THE CLOSE OF ALL EVIDENCE by Oracle America, Inc.. (Muino, Daniel) (Filed on 4/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[e-mail]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[e-mail]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[e-mail]
755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[e-mail]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[e-mail]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[e-mail]
500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

19

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

20

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

21

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

22

Plaintiff,

23

v.

24

GOOGLE INC.

25
26

Defendant.

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA,
INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF ITS RULE 50(A)
MOTION AT THE CLOSE OF ALL
EVIDENCE
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

27
28
OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO ITS RULE 50(A) MOTION
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1526194

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

3

III.

LEGAL STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

4

IV.

NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND THAT GOOGLE DID NOT
INFRINGE ORACLE’S JAVA-RELATED COPYRIGHTS

5

A.

6
7

Google Infringes Oracle’s Copyrights by Copying the Structure,
Sequence, and Organization of the 37 Java API Packages
1.
2.

9
10

Google admitted that it had access to the structure, sequence,
and organization of the 37 Java API packages

3.

8

Google admitted that it directly copied the structure, sequence,
and organization of the 37 Java API packages

Google admitted that the structure, sequence, and organization
of the 37 Java API packages and that of the Google Android
API packages are substantially similar

11
12

B.

Google’s Copying Is Not Fair Use

13

1.

Google commercially uses the copyrighted work

14

2.

The copyrighted work is creative in nature

15

3.

Google uses key, valuable portions of the copyrighted work

16

4.

Google’s use harms the potential market for and value of the
copyrighted work

5.

Google’s copying does not serve a transformative purpose

17
18

C.

20
21

V.

Google’s Copying of the Structure, Sequence, and Organization of the
37 Java API Packages Was Not De Minimis

D.

19

Google’s Literal Copying of Code and Comments Was Not De Minimis

OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE NOT BEING PRESENTED TO THE JURY

22

A.

Oracle Owns Valid Copyrights in Java-Related Works

23

B.

Google Copied Original Elements of Java-Related Works

24

C.

Google Infringes Oracle’s Copyrights by Copying the Structure,
Sequence, and Organization of the Documentation for 37 Java API
Packages into the Documentation for the 37 Google Android API
Packages

D.

Google Infringes Oracle’s Copyrights by Deriving Its Implementations
of the 37 Google Android API Packages from the Documentation for
the 37 Java API Packages

25
26
27
28

OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO ITS RULE 50(A) MOTION
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1526194

1

1

VI.

2

A.

6
7

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

VII.

Google Has Not Shown that Oracle or Sun Waived Its Right to Assert
Copyright Infringement Claims

D.

5

Google Has Not Shown that the Doctrine of Laches Applies to Oracle’s
Copyright Infringement Claims

C.

4

Google Has Not Shown that Equitable Estoppel Bars Oracle’s
Copyright Infringement Claims

B.

3

8

GOOGLE’S EQUITABLE DEFENSES FAIL

Google Has Not Shown that Oracle or Sun Gave It an Implied License
to Use Oracle’s Copyrights

ALTERNATIVE GOOGLE DEFENSES THAT GOOGLE PLED BUT DID
NOT PRESENT TO THE JURY FAIL
A.

Google Has Not Shown that Merger Doctrine Applies

B.

Google Has Not Shown that Scenes A Faire Doctrine Applies

C.

Google Has Not Shown that Oracle or Sun Gave It a License to Use
Oracle’s Copyrights

D.

Google Has Not Shown that It Independently Created the Accused
Works

E.

Google Has Not Shown that a Third Party Is Liable for Google’s
Infringing Conduct

F.

Google Has Not Shown that Oracle’s Copyright Infringement Claims
Are Subject to the Doctrine of Unclean Hands

VIII. CONCLUSION

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Dated: April 29, 2012

MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
DANIEL P. MUINO
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Daniel P. Muino
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

27
28
OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S MEMO OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES ISO ITS RULE 50(A) MOTION
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1526194

2