Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-403/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

PROPOSED JURY

INSTRUCTION

To head off potential confusion and speculation by the jury, the Court seeks the

guidance of counsel on the statement below (for the jury). Please meet and confer and discuss

on Friday morning.

* * *

You have already heard from a witness that we have already had one trial in this case. 

That was in 2012. The jury found that Google infringed Sun/Oracle’s copyright by using the

declaring code and structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 APIs subject only to further

determination whether or not the use was a fair use, which determination was not made one way

or the other. The jury rejected Oracle’s claim that Google infringed its copyrights in the

specification documentation for the 37 APIs and also rejected Oracle’s claim that Google

infringed various patents held by Oracle. The trial judge held, however, that the declaring lines

of code and their structure, sequence, and organization were not copyrightable under the

Copyright Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed with regard to

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1869 Filed 05/11/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

copyrightability and held that the declaring lines of code and their structure, sequence, and

organization were copyrightable and sent the case back here for this trial on fair use and,

depending on that verdict, for damages and other relief. This is the trial we are now having. So

as this case comes to us now, it is a given as a matter of law that the declaring lines of code and

their structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 APIs are copyrightable and thus subject to

protection under the law subject only to the right of fair use if it applies. And it is a given that

Android used the declaring code and structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 APIs. 

From time to time you will hear testimony from the prior trial and this will count as evidence,

just as evidence presented here counts as evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1869 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 2