Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-371/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

MEMORANDUM OPINION RE

ORACLE’S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1

REGARDING DR. OWEN ASTRACHAN

INTRODUCTION

In this copyright infringement action, the copyright owner seeks to exclude portions of

the testimony of the accused infringer’s technical expert on issues related to fair use and seeks

partial summary judgment that the accused infringer’s use was not transformative. The final

pretrial order GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART plaintiff Oracle America, Inc.’s motion,

ruling that Dr. Owen Astrachan may not offer testimony regarding his “understanding” that

“transformativeness” means “opening new horizons,” that he must be clear that his references

to compatibility and interoperability relate only to the expectations and conventions of Java

developers, and that he must not offer conclusions regarding the economic effect of Android on

the market for Java. Now this memorandum opinion explains the reasons. 

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc., acquired the copyrights in Java 2 Platform, Standard

Edition Version 1.4 and Java 2 Platform, Standard Edition Version 5.0, two versions of a

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 8
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

computer programming platform primarily for use on desktop computers from Sun

Microsystems, Inc. 

Our defendant Google Inc. copied the exact names and functions of 37 of the

Application Programming Interface packages from Java 2 SE 1.4 and 5.0 and arranged them

according to the same structure, sequence, and organization in its own operating system for

mobile devices called Android. Although Google copied the names, functions, and SSO of

those 37 API packages (by copying the headers for the methods and classes known as

“declaring code”), it used different code to implement the functions of the 37 API packages in

Android. That is, of the 37 API packages that Google replicated, 97 percent of the code therein

was not copied from Oracle’s copyrighted works.

Oracle commenced this action against Google in 2010, asserting claims that Google’s

Android operating system infringed its copyrights in Java 2 SE 1.4 and 5.0. The case proceeded

to trial, and the jury found that Google infringed Oracle’s copyrights but did not infringe its

patents. The jury deadlocked on Google’s fair use defense. The undersigned granted Google’s

motion for judgment as a matter of law, holding that the declaring code and the SSO of the

37 API packages were not entitled to copyright protection. The Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding Google’s

fair use defense and Oracle’s damages.

Oracle now moves to exclude portions of the testimony of Dr. Owen Astrachan,

Google’s expert on technical issues relating to fair use. Oracle also seeks partial summary

judgment that Google’s use was not transformative. This order follows full briefing and oral

argument. (The Court held five hearings on the parties’ motions in limine for a total of more

than twenty hours of oral argument.)

ANALYSIS

District courts are charged as the gatekeepers who evaluate the admissibility of expert

opinion testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999). Rule 702 of the

Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to admit expert testimony that is (1) based upon

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 8
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

3

sufficient facts or data, (2) the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) delivered

by a witness who has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. 

The admissibility of expert testimony turns on “whether expert testimony proffered in the case

is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.” 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993). The proponent of expert

testimony has the burden of demonstrating its admissibility. Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.,

89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996).

Oracle seeks to preclude Astrachan and Google in general from offering evidence or

argument regarding whether Google’s use of the declaring code and SSO from 37 API packages

from Java constituted a “transformative” use. Oracle also seeks to exclude portions of

Astrachan’s testimony relating to whether Google needed to copy the 37 API packages to use

the Java language and relating to the effect of Google’s alleged infringement on the market for

the copyrighted works. Each argument is addressed in turn.

1. TRANSFORMATIVENESS.

Oracle argues that Google cannot demonstrate that its use of the declaring code and SSO

of the 37 API packages in Android is transformative because Google “ma[d]e no alteration to

the expressive content or message of the original work.” Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.,

750 F.3d 1339, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Google responds that by incorporating the declaring

code and SSO into a smartphone operating system, it added new meaning to the copied portions

of the original work (a feat that Oracle had failed to accomplish on its own).

On a nearly identical record to that before us now, the Federal Circuit concluded:

[T]he parties disagree on whether [Google’s] use is

“transformative.” Google argues that it is, because it wrote

its own implementing code, and incorporated the packages

into a smartphone platform. For its part, Oracle maintains that

Google’s use is not transformative because: (1) “[t]he same

code in Android . . . enables programmers to invoke the same

pre-programmed functions in exactly the same way,” and

(2) “Google’s use of the declaring code and packages does not

serve a different function from Java.” While Google overstates

what activities can be deemed transformative under a correct

application of the law, we cannot say that there are no material

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 3 of 8
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

4

facts in dispute on the question of whether Google’s use is

“transformative,” even under a correct reading of the law. 

As such, we are unable to resolve this issue on appeal.

Id. at 1376. As did the court of appeals, this Court finds that there remains a dispute of fact as

to the extent to which Google’s use of the declaring code and SSO were transformative, and

Astrachan’s testimony regarding Google’s incorporation of that code into a smartphone platform

may help the jury resolve that dispute. Thus, as stated in the final pretrial order, Oracle’s motion

to exclude all evidence of transformativeness (really a motion for partial summary judgment in

disguise) is DENIED.

Oracle contends that Astrachan applied an inaccurate standard when determining whether

Google’s use of the declaring code and SSO from the 37 API packages was transformative. 

Specifically, at his deposition, Astrachan testified (Astrachan Dep. at 163):

I did not apply a specific test, but rather tried to understand this use

as very similar to, in which case it wouldn’t be transformational, or

very different from an “opening new horizons” as it were. And

those are words that I’m using now to try to convey the kinds of

things I thought about in indicating that I believe this is

transformational.

This does not purport to tell the jury what “test” to use under the law. In fact, it says no test

was applied by Astrachan. Instead, Astrachan characterizes what Android did as opening a new

horizon. The jury will be instructed on the proper scope of transformativeness under the law,

and Astrachan’s expert technical opinion about the alleged innovativeness of Google’s addition

of numerous features to the copied elements of Java 2 SE 1.4 and 5.0 may be helpful to the jury,

notwithstanding his novel terminology (which did not appear in his opening report). 

Astrachan will not be permitted to not offer testimony regarding his understanding of the

law, i.e., that “transformativeness” means “opening new horizons.” Nevertheless, Astrachan

may testify as to his belief that Android opened new horizons, which testimony could help the

jury in assessing transformativeness. 

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 4 of 8
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

5

B. NEED TO COPY.

The Federal Circuit expressly noted that “Google’s competitive desire to achieve

commercial ‘interoperability’ . . . may be relevant to a fair use analysis.” Oracle Am. v. Google,

Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1376–77 (9th Cir. 2014). Similarly, it noted, “Google’s interest was in

accelerating its development process by leveraging Java for its existing base of developers. 

Although this competitive objective may be relevant to the fair use inquiry, we conclude that it is

irrelevant to the copyrightability of Oracle’s declaring code and organization of the API

packages.” Id. at 1372. Nevertheless, Oracle seeks to exclude the portions of Astrachan’s

testimony opining that Google needed to copy the declaring code and structure, sequence, and

organization of the 37 API packages in order to achieve goals of interoperability. Specifically,

Oracle takes issue with the following opinions offered by Astrachan:

• “[T]he 37 Java SE API packages are integral to the Java programming

language and accordingly necessary to make effective use of the Java

programming language” (Astrachan Reply Rpt. ¶ 24).

• “When Google chose the Java programming language . . . certain things

naturally flowed from that decision — including using the method

declarations from the Java APIs” (Astrachan Rpt. ¶ 162).

• “[T]he names and parameters of the APIs must be the same for many

reasons . . . the Android platform is compatible with and provided the

functionality of the Java language APIs at issue, and necessarily uses the

same API names and organization in order to do so” (id. ¶ 250)

• “[E]ach implementation must include exactly the same method

declaration, including all the elements of the declaration, . . . in order to be

compatible” (id. ¶ 225).

• “In the Oracle JDK 1.5 implementation on the right, the first part of the

first line of the implementation is the same as the Android implementation

on the left . . . . Again, this similarity is required for compatibility” (id.

¶ 237).

• “The method name, return type, and parameter type . . . are again identical

as they must be for compatibility and interoperability” (id. ¶ 239).

• “[O]ne small portion, [the declaring code] is required to be the same for

purposes of compatibility and interoperability” (id. ¶ 249).

Oracle contends that because nothing in the rules of the Java language required Google

to replicate the declaring code and the SSO in order to use the Java programming language (with

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 5 of 8
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

6

the exception of the core API packages identified by the Federal Circuit, including the 62 classes

that all agree were necessary to use the Java language), Astrachan’s opinions above are

foreclosed as a matter of law. Similarly, Oracle notes that the Federal Circuit found “Google

designed Android so that it would not be compatible with the Java platform, or the [Java Virtual

Machine] specifically.” Oracle, 750 F.3d at 1371. Thus, Oracle contends, Astrachan should

not be permitted to testify that Google in fact needed to copy the declaring code and SSO of the

37 API packages in order to use the Java language or to serve the purpose of compatibility with

the Java platform.

Google responds that Oracle has mischaracterized Astrachan’s opinions. Astrachan

summarized his conclusion as finding “that using the method declarations from the 37 API

packages was reasonable for ensuring basic compatibility with the conventions of the Java

programming language and expectations of programmers for a mobile platform” (Astrachan Rpt.

¶ 171). He did not opine as to compatibility with the Java platform, nor did he assert that any

copying was necessary solely to enable use of the Java language. Contrary to Oracle,

Astrachan’s report does not contradict the findings of the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit

particularly noted that beyond the core packages necessary to write programs in the Java

language, “it may be that others of the packages were similarly essential components of any

Java language-based program.” Oracle, 750 F.3d at 1377. 

Nevertheless, Astrachan must be clear about the scope and character of his opinion in

order to avoid inviting the jury to draw any inferences contrary to the Federal Circuit’s decision. 

Astrachan must clearly state that Android is not compatible or interoperable with the Java

platform and that Google had no technical need to copy the declaring code and SSO in order to

use the Java programming language, with the exception of the three core libraries addressed in

the Federal Circuit opinion (which include sixty-two classes that all agree were technically

necessary to use the language). Astrachan must further clarify that his testimony only relates to

the compatibility with the conventions and expectations of developers using the Java

programming language. Finally, Astrachan may not offer testimony based on the headings in his

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 6 of 8
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

7

report, which address “compatibility” and “interoperability” without regard to the limitations of

those characteristics addressed above.

To the extent stated above, Oracle’s motion to exclude his testimony regarding

compatibility and interoperability is GRANTED.

3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS.

Finally, Oracle seeks to exclude Astrachan’s analysis of the fourth fair use factor because

Astrachan is a technical expert, not an economics expert. The bulk of Astrachan’s analysis of

the fourth factor pertained to his field of expertise. For example, he opined that there was no

technical barrier to Google’s use of OpenJDK when it first launched Android and that the

number of Java developers has increased over time because developers can use the Java

language to create Android applications (Astrachan Rpt. ¶¶ 264, 270). Nevertheless, Astrachan

did reach conclusions about the economic effects of certain events. Specifically, he opined that

“Android is not a substitute for Java SE because that Java platform targets a substantially

different market” (id. ¶ 256). Similarly, he stated, even if “Android could have had some effect

on the potential market for Java, the effect would have come about as a result of Sun/Oracle’s

own actions” (id. ¶ 258). Finally, he concluded that “[t]here is evidence that Android positively

affected the market for Java” (id. ¶ 270). 

These particular opinions appear to be inferences about economic issues based on

Astrachan’s understanding of the technical differences between the copyrighted works and

Android. Consistent with his lack of expertise in the field of economics, those conclusions were

unsupported by any economic analysis. Indeed, Oracle notes that Astrachan failed to consider

certain facts that might be relevant in any economics analysis such as the financial details of

Oracle’s licenses or the circumstances of a failed negotiation to implement Java SE in a tablet.

As stated, the bulk of Astrachan’s opinion regarding the fourth fair use factor comprises

useful expert analysis regarding the technical similarities and differences between Android and

Java SE, the technical details of OpenJDK, and the interest of programmers in writing for Java. 

Nevertheless, Astrachan is not qualified to offer conclusions about the economic effects of

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 7 of 8
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

8

certain events. Accordingly, paragraph 256, the first sentence of paragraph 258, and the first

sentence of paragraph 270 of Astrachan’s report are hereby stricken, and any testimony based

thereon is hereby excluded. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, and as stated in the final pretrial order, Oracle’s first motion

in limine is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Astrachan must be clear about the scope

of his compatibility and interoperability conclusions. The following portions of Astrachan’s

report are stricken and any testimony based thereon excluded:

• Paragraph 256.

• The first sentence of paragraph 258. 

• The first sentence of paragraph 270.

• The headings of his report.

Astrachan must be clear about the scope and character of his opinion in order to avoid

inviting the jury to draw any inferences contrary to the Federal Circuit’s decision. Astrachan

must clearly state that Android is not compatible or interoperable with the Java platform and that

Google had no technical need to copy the declaring code and SSO in order to use the Java

programming language, with the exception of the three core libraries addressed in the Federal

Circuit opinion (which include sixty-two classes that all agree were technically necessary to use

the language). Astrachan must further clarify that his testimony only relates to the compatibility

with the conventions and expectations of developers using the Java programming language. 

Finally, Astrachan may not offer testimony based on the headings in his report, which address

“compatibility” and “interoperability” without regard to the limitations of those characteristics

addressed above.

Dated: May 2, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1783 Filed 05/02/16 Page 8 of 8