Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
750 F.3d 1339
| Fed. Cir. | 2014Background
- Sun (later Oracle) developed Java and grouped prewritten functions into API packages (37 at issue) containing declaring (headers) and implementing code; Oracle owns copyrights and offers various licenses.
- Google copied verbatim ~7,000 lines of declaring code and the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of the 37 Java API packages into Android, wrote its own implementing code, and also copied a nine-line rangeCheck and eight decompiled security files.
- Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement; the jury found literal copying and infringement of the 37 packages and rangeCheck, deadlocked on fair use, and found noninfringement as to eight decompiled files (later JMOL restored infringement for those files).
- The district court held the declaring code and the SSO were not copyrightable (merger, short-phrase, and method-of-operation reasoning), entered final judgment for Google (except rangeCheck and decompiled files).
- On appeal the Federal Circuit reversed the district court on copyrightability (protecting declaring code and SSO), affirmed JMOL rulings as to rangeCheck and decompiled files, and remanded fair use for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Oracle) | Defendant's Argument (Google) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyrightability of declaring code (method headers) | Declaring code and its compilation exhibit creativity and are protectable; merger and short-phrase doctrines do not apply globally | Declarations are the only or essential way to express the idea for interoperability, so merger/short-phrases bar protection | Reversed district court: declaring code is copyrightable; merger and short-phrase doctrines were misapplied (copyrightability determined at creation, not copying) |
| Copyrightability of structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of APIs | The SSO is an original, creative taxonomy/selection and arrangement entitled to protection | SSO is a "method of operation" or functional command structure excluded by 17 U.S.C. §102(b) and necessary for interoperability | Reversed: SSO may be copyrighted; Lotus method-of-operation rule is inconsistent with Ninth Circuit precedent and abstraction-filtration analysis; functionality does not automatically preclude protection |
| Role of interoperability / industry-standard arguments in copyrightability | Interoperability concerns are relevant to fair use, not to threshold copyrightability | Interoperability needs justify excluding protection (or treating elements as unprotectable) | Interoperability is not a copyrightability defense; it may bear on fair use but not on whether Oracle’s work was original and protectable |
| Fair use (jury deadlock) | Oracle: Google’s commercial verbatim copying in a competing market is not fair use; remand pointless | Google: Use may be transformative and necessary for compatibility; factual disputes preclude resolution as a matter of law | Remanded for further proceedings on fair use (material factual disputes remain; jury instructions should be revised consistent with opinion) |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (Sup. Ct.) (originality standard; selection and arrangement protectable)
- Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (U.S.) (idea/expression dichotomy; methods of operation not protected)
- Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir.) (unique arrangement not merged where alternatives exist)
- Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir.) (menu command hierarchy held a method of operation)
- Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.) (abstraction-filtration-comparison; fair use/reverse engineering context)
- Sony Computer Entm’t Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.) (reverse engineering and fair use)
- Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir.) (abstraction-filtration-comparison test for non-literal elements)
- Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (U.S.) (four-factor fair use framework)
- Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201 (U.S.) (copyright protects expression even if patentable)