Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1230

REPLY in Support of (re #1222 MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law on Portions of Count VIII of Oracle's Amended Complaint, or, in the Alternative, for a New Trial ) filed byGoogle Inc.. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 8/7/2012) Modified on 8/8/2012 (dtm, COURT STAFF).

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

GOOGLE INC.,

22
23
24

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
GOOGLE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR RULE 50(b) JUDGMENT
AS A MATTER OF LAW ON PORTIONS
OF COUNT VIII OF ORACLE’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A NEW TRIAL

Defendant.
Date:
Time:
Dept.:
Judge:

August 23, 2012
8:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup

25
26
27
28
GOOGLE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JMOL,
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
684463.01

1
I.
2
3
4
5

INTRODUCTION
The Court should grant Google’s motion for Rule 50(b) judgment as a matter of law

(“JMOL”), or in the alternative, for a new trial (Dkt. 1222). None of the arguments Oracle raises
in its Opposition (Dkt. 1227) adds to the parties’ prior briefing on these issues or compels a
different conclusion.

6
II.

ARGUMENT

7
A.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

The J2SE platform is the work Oracle registered with the Copyright Office and the
copyright in the J2SE platform is the copyright that Oracle accused Google of infringing in this
case. Dkt. 36, Ex. H; see also TX 464 and 475. As a matter of law, the registered work is the
“work as a whole.” Moreover, Oracle presented no evidence at trial that “[e]ach source code file
in the Java platform” is “recognizable as a self-contained work.” Dkt. 1227 at 3:1-2. Thus, even
if it were possible to subdivide a registered work, there is no basis in the record to subdivide the
J2SE platform file-by-file into separate “works.”

15
16
17
18

The J2SE platform is the “work as a whole.”

For all the reasons stated in Google’s JMOL motion and its prior copyright briefs, (Dkt.
955 at 5:2-12:2, Dkt. 984 at 5:1-10, Dkt. 993 at 3:9-6:5, and Dkt. 1043 at n. 9), which are
incorporated herein by reference, the complete J2SE platform is the “work as a whole” for the
infringement analysis.

19
B.
20

The rangeCheck function and the “decompiled files” are de minimis as a
matter of law.

The rangeCheck function is de minimis as a matter of law when compared either to the

21

1

22

millions of lines of code in the J2SE platform or to the 3,179 lines of code in the Arrays.java file.

23

Oracle’s reliance on Dr. Mitchell’s testimony that rangeCheck is “useful” to the library in which

24

it is located and that the rangeCheck code “has some subtlety” is insufficient to establish

25

quantitative or qualitative significance. See Newton v. Diamond, 388 F.3d 1189, 1195-97 (9th

26
1

27
28

As explained in Section II.A., above, rangeCheck and the “decompiled files” should be
compared to the J2SE platform as a whole to determine whether any copying was de minimis.
1
GOOGLE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JMOL,
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA

684463.01

1

Cir. 2004). Further, Oracle presented no evidence at trial that a computer programmer or

2

application developer would “recognize Google’s copying of rangeCheck.” Dkt. 1227 at 6:9.

3

The “decompiled files” are also de minimis as a matter of law. The files are a tiny fraction

4

of the code in the J2SE platform, and there is no evidence that they are qualitatively significant.

5

Therefore, for all the reasons stated in Google’s JMOL motion and prior copyright briefs

6

(Dkt. 955, 984, 993, 1007, and 1043), which are incorporated herein by reference, Google’s

7

JMOL motion should be granted.

8

III.

9
10

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Google’s motion for Rule 50(b) judgment as a matter of law,

or, in the alternative, for a new trial should be granted.

11
12
13

Dated: August 7, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
By:

14

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

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
GOOGLE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 50(b) MOTION FOR JMOL,
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA

684463.01