Cases

5/3/2021 12:16:35 PM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (321 KB)

4/6/2021 10:15:22 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (322 KB)

7/8/2021 10:09:43 AM Compare Results Old File: New File: 18-956.pdf 18-956_new.pdf versus 62 pages (323 KB) 62 pages (308 KB)

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

O'Malley, Circuit Judge. *1185 This copyright case returns to us after a second jury trial, this one focusing on the defense of fair use. Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle") filed suit against Google Inc. ("Google") 1 in the United

The parties is directed to file supplemental letter briefs addressing the appropriate standard of review for the second question presented, including but not limited to the implications of the Seventh Amendment, if any, on that standard. The briefs, not to exceed 10 pages, is to be filed simultaneously with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Friday, August 7, 2020.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

Motion of 78 Computer Scientists for leave to file a brief as amici curiae granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted.

The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.

O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge. This copyright dispute involves 37 packages of computer source code. The parties have often referred to these groups of computer programs, individually or collectively, as “application programming interfaces,” or API packages, but it is their content, not their name, that matters. The predecessor of Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) wrote these and other

810 F.Supp.2d 1002 (2011) ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC., Defendant. No. C 10-03561 WHA. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 15, 2011. *1005 David Boies, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Armonk, NY, Deborah Kay Miller, Oracle USA, Inc. Legal Department, Dorian Estelle Daley, Matthew M. Sarborari

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 18-1880C (Filed: July 19, 2019) (Re-Filed: July 26, 2019) 1 ************************** ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, Pre-award bid protest; 10 v. U.S.C. § 2304a(d)(3)-(4) (20

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ORACLE INTERNATIONAL No. 23-16038 CORPORATION; ORACLE AMERICA, INC., D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01699- Plaintiffs-counter- MMD-DJA defendants-Appellees, v. OPINION RIMINI STREET, INC.

Filed 12/05/2022 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PRAGER UNIVERSITY, H047714 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 19CV340667) v. GOOGLE LLC et al., Defendants and Respondents. After

ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before the court is plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.; Oracle America, Inc.; and Oracle International Corporation’s (collectively “Oracle”) motion for partial summary judgment on their first cause of action for copyright infringement and on defendant Rimini Street, Inc.’s (“Rimini”) second, third, and sixth affirmative defenses. Doc. # 237.1

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SIM LAKE, District Judge. This is a patent infringement suit filed by SuperSpeed, L.L.C. (“SuperSpeed”) against Google, Inc. (“Google”), involving United States Patent Nos. 5,577,226 (“'226 Patent”) and 5,918,244 (“'244 Patent”). The '226 Patent is the parent application to the '244 Patent, and both patents claim priority to U.S. Application No. 08/238,815, filed on

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 137, 138 LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge Plaintiffs Greg Garrison (“Garrison”), Deborah Van Vorst (“Van Vorst”), and Sastry Hari (“Hari”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this putative class action against Defendant Oracle Corporation (“Oracle”) for alleged violations of federal and Californi

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1641 LIVE FACE ON WEB, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CREMATION SOCIETY OF ILLINOIS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Co

MEMORANDUM OPINION SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff MobileMedia Ideas, LLC (“MobileMedia”) filed a patent infringement complaint against Apple Inc. (“Apple”) on March 31, 2010,. alleging infringement of fourteen of its patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,070,068 (“the '068 patent”), 6,253,075 (“the '075 patent”), RE39231 (“the '231 patent”), 5,737,394 (“the '394 paten