Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG

Last updated
Oracle Corporation v. SAP AG
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Full case nameOracle Corp., et al v. SAP AG
DecidedSeptember 1, 2011
Docket nos. 4:07-cv-01658
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Phyllis J. Hamilton
Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen
Keywords
Copyright infringement

Oracle Corp v. SAP AG, No. 4:07-cv-01658, was a United States District Court for the Northern District of California case in which Oracle sued SAP, alleging that SAP had engaged in copyright infringement by downloading thousands of copyrighted documents and programs from Oracle's Customer Connection website. SAP admitted that its subsidiary TomorrowNow had infringed Oracle's copyrights and a jury awarded Oracle record-high damages in the amount of $1.3 billion. Judge Phyllis Hamilton later vacated the jury's verdict, which was based on the calculation of a hypothetical license, and granted SAP's motion for a new trial dependent on Oracle rejecting a remittitur of $272 million. In November 2014, an appeals court ruled for $356.7 million in damages, a decision which was accepted by both parties. [1]

Contents

Background

TomorrowNow was a company based in Bryan, Texas, which specialized in offering third-party technical service and support for enterprise software systems, including systems from PeopleSoft and JD Edwards. TomorrowNow was acquired by SAP AG in 2005 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of SAP. [2]

PeopleSoft acquired JD Edwards in 2003 [3] and then Oracle Corporation acquired PeopleSoft in 2005. [4]

On March 22, 2007, Oracle filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California accusing SAP and TomorrowNow of corporate theft on a "grand scale". [5] [6] According to Oracle, TomorrowNow had downloaded thousands of documents and programs from Oracle's Customer Connection technical support website. Downloads were performed using credentials from Oracle customers whose support contract either already had or were about to expire. In addition, TomorrowNow had downloaded copyrighted support material for which the customers did not hold a license, and thus, were not authorized to access. [5]

Initially, SAP admitted that TomorrowNow had accessed Oracle's software and support documentation using customers' credentials, but claimed they were entitled to do so as TomorrowNow had been contracted by those customers to provide third-party support for their Oracle products. [7] Later, Oracle and SAP agreed to limit the scope of the trial to solely the copyright infringement claim and the damages. [8] SAP offered to admit that TomorrowNow had indeed infringed Oracle's copyrights, leaving the jury court to only determine the amount of damages. [9]

On the issue of damages, the two parties presented calculations that were vastly different. SAP claimed that Oracle had not suffered any losses and SAP/TomorrowNow had gained no financial benefit (rather they had lost $90 million) from the infringement. According to SAP's calculation, the damages were between $28 million and $408.7 million. [10] Oracle based their damages calculation on the hypothetical price it would have cost a customer to purchase all the software and support in order to legally access all the material downloaded by TomorrowNow, totaling $2 billion. [11]

Court ruling

On November 23, 2010, the jury awarded Oracle damages in the amount of $1.3 billion. [12] This was the highest amount of damages ever awarded in a copyright infringement case. [13] On July 13, 2011, SAP motioned for seeking judgment as a matter of law that actual damages should not be based on hypothetical licenses, and for a new trial for the amount of damages. [14] On September 1, 2011, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton granted the judgment as a matter of law on the hypothetical license damages, and vacated the $1.3 billion award amount. [15] In her ruling Judge Hamilton stated:

Oracle's suggestion – that upon proof of infringement, copyright plaintiffs are automatically entitled to seek "hypothetical" license damages because they are presumed to have suffered harm in the form of lost license fees – has no support in the law." [15]

SAP's motion for a new trial was granted, conditioned on Oracle rejecting a remittitur of $272 million, the "maximum amount of lost profits and infringer's profits sustainable by the proof." [15]

Judge Hamilton further stated:

Determining a hypothetical license price requires an "objective, not a subjective" analysis, and "[e]xcessively speculative" claims must be rejected." [15]

Hypothetical licenses

In 17 U.S.C.   § 504 of the Copyright Act, it states that "the copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement". Since the actual damages must be the result of the infringement, the burden is on the copyright holder to prove the connection between the monetary amount and the infringement. [15]

Oracle was required to prove that the two parties would have agreed on the hypothetical license and license fees, but Oracle had no such evidence. Oracle did not provide facts on previous licensing history or practices. Oracle also failed to provide evidence on benchmark licenses, such as negotiated licenses for comparable works. There was no evidence that Oracle would have licensed to SAP or if the two parties would have ever agreed to any license, so the hypothetical lost license fees could not be the award damages. Hypothetical lost license fees can be used to calculate actual damages, but they do not imply automatic entitlement of damages. Actual proof is required for objective, non-speculative lost license price. [15]

Remittitur amount

During the jury trial, Paul Meyer, Oracle's damages expert, provided analysis that the hypothetical lost license fees were in the range from $881 million to $2.69 billion, and thus the jury verdict was for $1.3 billion. However, the "verdict grossly exceeded the actual harm to Oracle in the form of lost customers," [15] which was estimated by Mr. Meyer at either $408.7 million or $272 million, and estimated by SAP's damages expert at $28 million. The court rejected the $408.7 million figure from Mr. Meyer since it included "ongoing impact" through 2015, and that was not supported by the facts, since SAP ceased TomorrowNow's operations in 2008. The court also rejected the $28 million figure from SAP's expert, because it was based on inadmissible evidence. Therefore, the court set the remittitur at $272 million. [15]

See also

Related Research Articles

Kazaa Media Desktop is a former peer-to-peer file sharing application using the FastTrack protocol licensed by Joltid Ltd. and operated as Kazaa by Sharman Networks. Kazaa was subsequently under license as a legal music subscription service by Atrinsic, Inc., which lasted until August 2012. According to one of its creators, Jaan Tallinn, Kazaa is pronounced ka-ZAH (/kəˈzaː/).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oracle Corporation</span> American multinational computer technology corporation

Oracle Corporation is an American multinational computer technology corporation headquartered in Austin, Texas. In 2020, Oracle was the third-largest software company in the world by revenue and market capitalization. The company sells database software and technology, cloud engineered systems, and enterprise software products, such as enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, human capital management (HCM) software, customer relationship management (CRM) software, enterprise performance management (EPM) software, and supply chain management (SCM) software.

Cox Communications, Inc. is an American digital cable television provider, telecommunications and home automation services. It is the third-largest cable television provider in the United States, serving approximately 6.5 million customers, including 2.9 million digital cable subscribers, 3.5 million Internet subscribers, and almost 3.2 million digital telephone subscribers, making it the seventh-largest telephone carrier in the country. Cox is headquartered at 6205 Peachtree Dunwoody Rd in Sandy Springs, Georgia, U.S., in the Atlanta metropolitan area. It is a privately-owned subsidiary of Cox Enterprises.

Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc., 523 U.S. 340 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if there is to be an award of statutory damages in a copyright infringement case, then the opposing party has the right to demand a jury trial.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital goods</span>

Digital goods or e-goods are intangible goods that exist in digital form. Examples are Wikipedia articles; digital media, such as e-books, downloadable music, internet radio, internet television and streaming media; fonts, logos, photos and graphics; digital subscriptions; online ads ; internet coupons; electronic tickets; electronically treated documentation in many different fields; downloadable software and mobile apps; cloud-based applications and online games; virtual goods used within the virtual economies of online games and communities; workbooks; worksheets; planners; e-learning ; webinars, video tutorials, blog posts; cards; patterns; website themes; templates.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i>

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

File sharing is the practice of distributing or providing access to digital media, such as computer programs, multimedia, program files, documents or electronic books/magazines. It involves various legal aspects as it is often used to exchange data that is copyrighted or licensed.

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

Dalvik is a discontinued process virtual machine (VM) in the Android operating system that executes applications written for Android. Dalvik was an integral part of the Android software stack in the Android versions 4.4 "KitKat" and earlier, which were commonly used on mobile devices such as mobile phones and tablet computers, and more in some devices such as smart TVs and wearables. Dalvik is open-source software, originally written by Dan Bornstein, who named it after the fishing village of Dalvík in Eyjafjörður, Iceland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyright infringement</span> Usage of a copyrighted work without the authors permission

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.

In the case of Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tenenbaum, record label Sony BMG, along with Warner Bros. Records, Atlantic Records, Arista Records, and UMG Recordings, accused Joel Tenenbaum of illegally downloading and sharing files in violation of U.S. copyright law. It was only the second file-sharing case to go to verdict in the Recording Industry Association of America's (RIAA) anti-downloading litigation campaign. After the judge entered a finding of liability, a jury assessed damages of $675,000, which the judge reduced to $67,500 on constitutional grounds, rather than through remittitur.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle Corporation</span> Agreement announced in 2009 and completed in 2010

The acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle Corporation was completed on January 27, 2010. After the acquisition was completed, Oracle, only a software vendor prior to the merger, owned Sun's hardware product lines, such as SPARC Enterprise, as well as Sun's software product lines, including the Java programming language.

<i>Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC</i>

Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, 715 F. Supp. 2d 481, is a United States district court case in which the Southern District of New York held that Lime Group LLC, the defendant, induced copyright infringement with its peer-to-peer file sharing software, LimeWire. The court issued a permanent injunction to shut it down. The lawsuit is a part of a larger campaign against piracy by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP</span> Law firm

Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP is a litigation boutique located in San Francisco, California, founded in 1978. The firm's areas of practice include intellectual property, professional liability, class actions, wrongful termination defense, general contract and commercial litigation, antitrust, white collar crime, and appellate.

<i>Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum</i> U.S. court case

Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum is the appeals lawsuit which followed the U.S. District Court case Sony BMG v. Tenenbaum, No. 07cv11446-NG.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, was a patent lawsuit originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197 (2010), was a patent infringement case by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit involving "proactive scanning" technology for computer security. The Federal Circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. In terms of infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed Secure Computing's infringement on Finjan's system and storage medium patent claims but reversed the infringement on Finjan's method claim. In terms of damage award, the Federal Circuit not only affirmed the previous $9.18 million award by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, but also remanded for the district court to assess the extra damages between the post-judgement and pre-injunction period.

Marcus Gray et al. v. Katy Perry et al. was a copyright infringement lawsuit against Katy Perry, Jordan Houston, Lukasz Gottwald, Karl Martin Sandberg, Henry Russell Walter ("Cirkut"), Capitol Records and others, in which the plaintiffs Marcus Gray ("Flame"), Emanuel Lambert and Chike Ojukwu alleged that Perry's song "Dark Horse" infringed their exclusive rights in their song "Joyful Noise" pursuant to 17 U.S.C § 106. The focus of the similarity was a short descending pattern known in music as an "ostinato". In both songs, a short ostinato is used repeatedly to form part of the beat of each song and both ostinatos share similar descending shapes. Gray et al. claimed that the instrumental beat of the ostinato in "Joyful Noise" was protectable original expression and that Perry et al. had access to and copied the ostinato when composing "Dark Horse." On March 16, 2020, Judge Christina A. Snyder ultimately found that Gray et al. had failed to satisfy the extrinsic test for substantial similarity, overturning a previous jury verdict which had sided with the plaintiffs. Snyder's ruling was affirmed on appeal.

References

  1. ↑ Ribeiro, John. "Oracle, SAP settle long-standing TomorrowNow lawsuit". pcworld.com.
  2. ↑ Kane, Margaret. "SAP buys PeopleSoft support firm". CNET. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
  3. ↑ Regan, Keith (2 June 2003). "PeopleSoft Buys J.D. Edwards for $1.7B". E-Commerce Times. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
  4. ↑ Kerstetter, Jim. "Finally, Oracle Nails PeopleSoft". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
  5. 1 2 "Complaint and demand for damages and injunctive relief" (PDF). The initial complaint filed by Oracle. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
  6. ↑ Jones, Ashby (22 March 2007). "Oracle Sues SAP Alleging "Corporate Theft on a Grand Scale"". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
  7. ↑ "Defendants answer and affirmative defenses to first amended complaint" (PDF). SAP response to Oracle's complaint. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
  8. ↑ Niccolai, James. "Oracle vs SAP lawsuit: 27 most popular questions about the TomorrowNow case". ComputerWorld UK.
  9. ↑ Niccolai, James (28 October 2010). "Update: Oracle-SAP case takes dramatic 11th-hour turn". Computerworld. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  10. ↑ Gullo, Karen (2 September 2011). "Oracle's $1.3 Billion U.S. Verdict Against SAP Thrown Out". Bloomberg. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  11. ↑ Niccolai, James. "Oracle License Would Have Cost SAP Billions, Phillips Says". PC World. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  12. ↑ "Special verdict form" (PDF). Jury verdict on amount of damages. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
  13. ↑ Gullo, Karen (24 November 2010). "Oracle Wins $1.3 Billion Verdict for Closed SAP Unit's Illegal Downloading". Bloomberg. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
  14. ↑ "Civil Minutes: United States District Court for the Northern District of California" (PDF). SAP's motion for JMOL and new trial. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
  15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hamilton, Phyllis J. "Order partially vacating judgement" (PDF). Judge reverses the amount of damages awarded by the jury and offers remittitur or new trial. Retrieved 14 October 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.