Google Doesn't Follow Shanmugam to Paul Weiss in 'Copyright Case of the Decade'
Williams & Connolly's Lisa Blatt and Goldstein & Russell's Thomas Goldstein appear to be heading the show for Google v. Oracle at the Supreme Court.
April 10, 2019 at 07:03 PM
3 minute read
Google is sticking with Williams & Connolly in its high-stakes copyright showdown with Oracle Corp., notwithstanding the departure of a star Supreme Court advocate.
Kannon Shanmugam decamped for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in January, three days after appearing as counsel of record on Google's petition for certiorari in Google v. Oracle. The search giant is seeking to overturn Federal Circuit decisions that found portions of Java's application program interfaces are copyrightable, and that Google's copying of portions of them into its Android operating system is not a fair use.
On Wednesday Google filed its reply to Oracle's brief in opposition. Williams & Connolly remains on the brief, with new Supreme Court practice leader Lisa Blatt heading their group . Goldstein & Russell partner Thomas Goldstein, who was among those listed on the cert petition, is now counsel of record. Keker, Van Nest & Peters; King & Spalding and Kwun Bhansali Lazarus round out Google's team.
In its reply, Google reiterates in its view that Google v. Oracle is “the copyright case of the decade” with implications for tens of thousands of software interfaces that run on billions of devices.
Oracle had argued in its BIO that “software interface” is a phrase Google made up for this litigation. Google says Oracle “feigns confusion” about “a widely used term of art” that refers to the API declarations that organize and name common functions.
Oracle had also argued that the sky isn't falling on software developers as Google has warned would happen in the wake of the Federal Circuit rulings. But Google says just wait: “Until now, it remained open whether the re-use of software interfaces was lawful fair use,” the company argued in Wednesday's filing. “The Federal Circuit's holding to the contrary is regarded by the industry as definitive, triggering an outpouring of support for this court's intervention.”
Google has now cycled through four lead appellate lawyers over the course of the nine-year-old litigation. Keker's Robert Van Nest, who tried both cases for Google, argued the first appeal to the Federal Circuit. King & Spalding's Daryl Joseffer, now with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Litigation Center, signed Google's first Supreme Court cert petition and then argued its second appeal to the Federal Circuit.
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 AllSEC Fines 4 Companies $7M for Downplaying Breaches Tied to Massive SolarWinds Hack
DOJ, 8 State AGs Sue RealPage for Alleged Sherman Act Violations in Algorithmic Pricing Scheme
'We're Going to Tear the Barriers Down': Judge Prepares to Open App Market Floodgates on Google
AI Tools Creating Digital Paper Trails That Could Haunt Companies in Court
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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