Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1123

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW ON DECOMPILED FILES re #1045 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Oracle's Corrected Rule 50(A) Motion at the Close of Evidence (WITH TABLES) filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on May 11, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,

12
13

No. C 10-03561 WHA

v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW ON
DECOMPILED FILES

GOOGLE INC.,

14

Defendant.
/

15
16

The evidence at trial showed that Google decompiled eight Java files and copied them

17

each in their entirety. No reasonable jury could find that the copying of entire computer files

18

was de minimis. The trial record contains the source code for the Java code files

19

(TX 623.2–623.8), decompiled versions of Java code files (TX 896.1–896.8), and corresponding

20

Android code files (TX 1031–40). Professor John Mitchell testified about the decompilation

21

process, how he determined that the eight files were decompiled and how, in a side-by-side

22

comparison he found “that the actual code matches completely” (Tr. at 1259–1260).

23

In its opposition brief, Google argues that the jury may have found that Google’s use of

24

the copied files was de minimis because these copied files were only “test files” that were not

25

shipped on Android phones. This is unpersuasive. Professor Mitchell testified that using the

26

copied files even as test files would have been significant use. There was no testimony to the

27

contrary. Moreover, our court of appeals has held that it is the amount of copying as compared

28

to

1

plaintiff’s work that matters for the de minimis inquiry, not how the accused infringer used the

2

copied work. Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, Google has

3

admitted to copying the entire files. No reasonable jury could find that this copying was de

4

minimis.

5

For the reasons stated, Oracle’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of infringement

6

of the decompiled files is GRANTED. The answer to Question 3B on the Special Verdict Form

7

from phase one will be deemed “Yes.”

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: May 11, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2