Google Seeks En Banc Review of Copyright Fight With Oracle
The company wants the full Federal Circuit to review two rulings: one in 2014 holding Java APIs copyrightable, and another this year throwing out a fair use jury verdict.
May 30, 2018 at 06:41 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Google Inc. is asking the Federal Circuit to review en banc its copyright dispute with Oracle Corp. over Java application programming interfaces.
“This is the 'copyright lawsuit of the decade,' and if the panel's rulings are not corrected, their reverberations will be felt for decades,” Google states in a petition signed by King & Spalding partner Daryl Joseffer.
It's a step in the litigation process that Google bypassed the last time the parties were before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Instead it went straight to the Supreme Court with a petition for certiorari, which the high court turned down after requesting the solicitor general's views.
This time Google is asking the full court to review both U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California's 2012 ruling that the APIs are copyrightable, and the 2016 jury verdict finding Google's use of the APIs in its Android operating system a fair use. A three-judge panel of the court threw out both results—one in 2014, the other this March—which Google calls “a devastating one-two punch at the computer software industry.”
The odds of en banc review are always slim, but the Federal Circuit has been perceived as especially unlikely to review copyright cases en banc. The theory is that, unlike patent cases, the court is simply interpreting the law of regional circuits. But Google argues that software copyright plaintiffs are increasingly adding patent infringement to their complaints to ensure Federal Circuit jurisdiction over the appeals.
“Although the panel purported to apply Ninth Circuit law, this is now a Federal Circuit problem,” Joseffer writes.
Google argues that if software copyrights are enforced too strictly, it will kill innovation in the industry. The company says it used only a small amount of Java computer code—all that was necessary to invoke basic functions and methods for operating the programming language in the context of smartphones.
“If the panel's decision is allowed to stand, it is hard to see how any adaptation of any element of computer software to a new context could ever qualify as fair use,” Joseffer writes.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTravis Lenkner Returns to Burford Capital With an Eye on Future Growth Opportunities
Legal Speak's 'Sidebar With Saul' Part V: Strange Days of Trump Trial Culminate in Historic Verdict
1 minute readLegal Speak's 'Sidebar with Saul' Part IV: Deliberations Begin in First Trump Criminal Trial
1 minute readJosh Partington of Snell & Wilmer Is in Fact a Rock Star in the Office (and Out of It)
1 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250