Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc.
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112591
| D. Nev. | 2014Background
- Oracle owns six Oracle Database copyrights and Rimini copied these to serve client support, including non-production environments.
- Oracle alleged copyright infringement among thirteen causes of action; Rimini asserted multiple defenses and counterclaims.
- Oracle licenses Oracle Database via Developer License (OTN) and customer OL SAs; Rimini downloaded from OTN for development use.
- Rimini used Oracle Database to create updates/fixes for clients, not to develop its own application, and used copies for commercial purposes without proper production licensing.
- The court addressed whether Rimini’s Developer License and client OL SAs expressly authorize Rimini’s copying/use, plus defenses of statute of limitations and laches.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a prima facie copyright infringement? | Oracle owns the copyrights and Rimini copied them. | N/A | Oracle established a prima facie case; Rimini copied Oracle Database. |
| Do licenses (Developer License) expressly authorize Rimini’s copying/use? | Developer License limits copying to one copy for development only and prohibits commercial use. | Rimini argues Developer License allows development/use and updates for clients. | Developer License does not expressly authorize Rimini’s copying or commercial use; express license defense fails. |
| Do Oracle’s OL SAs (oracle licenses) expressly authorize Rimini’s copying/use via Section C/D? | OLSAs are not applicable here because Rimini downloaded from OTN and did not obtain copies via clients’ OL SAs. | If allowed, Sections C and D could authorize Rimini’s copying and use for contracted services. | Rimini cannot invoke OLSAs; Sections C/D do not expressly authorize Rimini’s copying. |
| Is Rimini’s claim time-barred by statute of limitations? | Oracle’s infringement occurred after 2007; statute begins when discovery would have occurred. | Oracle knew of Rimini’s conduct pre-2007 via 2005-2006 notifications. | All copyright claims are timely; no accrual before January 25, 2007 proved. |
| Is Rimini barred by laches? | Oracle filed suit within limitations with no undue delay. | Delay was unreasonable and prejudicial due to Rimini’s investments. | Oracle not barred by laches; motion granted on laches defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir.1995) (copying entire programs supports infringement in software maintenance)
- MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer Corp., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir.1993) (copying software onto defendant’s systems supports infringement)
- Range Road Music, Inc. v. East Coast Foods, Inc., 668 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir.2012) (ownership and copying elements for copyright claim)
- Funky Films, Inc. v. Time Warner Entm’t Co., 462 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir.2006) (copyright infringement standards in Ninth Circuit)
- Roley v. New World Pictures, 19 F.3d 479 (9th Cir.1994) (accrual and discovery concepts for limitations)
- Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.2001) (equitable considerations for laches in copyright)
- William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, 568 F.3d 425 (3d Cir.2009) (public figure status and defamation standard)
- In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litig., 2005 WL 289977 (N.D. Cal.2005) (copyright accrual concept in file-sharing context)
- Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir.2001) (laches and accrual analysis in copyright)
- Polar Bear Prods. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 724 (9th Cir.2004) (deliberate copying as infringement; fair use context)