N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
OR AC LE USA, INC ., a

C olora do c orporation; e t a l.,

Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. R IM INI STR EET, INC ., a Ne va da c orporation, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 18-16554

DC No. C V 10-0106 LR

H M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Larry R . Hic ks, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d

July 12, 2019 Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TASHIM A , GR AB ER , a nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nt R im ini Stre e t, Inc . (“ R i m ini” ) a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r e nte ring a

pe rm ane nt injunc tion in fa vor of, a nd a warding a ttorne y ’ s fe e s to, Pla intiffs-Appe lle e s Ora c l e USA, Inc ., Ora c l e Am e ric a , Inc ., a nd Ora c le 

# FIL ED AUG 16 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Inte rnationa l C orp. (c olle c tive ly “ Ora c le ” ). R im ini c onte nds tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in e nte ring theinjunc tion, tha t the injunc tion is mo ot, a nd tha t the injunc tion is ove rbroa d a

nd im pe rm issibly

va gue . R im ini a l so c o nte nds tha t the distric t c ourt’ s fe e aw ard viola

te d this c ourt’ s prior m andat e an d tha t the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion in a

pportioning the

award. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm

e xc e pt a s to pa

ra gra phs nineand thirte e n

of the injunc tion, whic h we instruc t the distric t c ourt to strike , and a lso e xc e pt a s to the words “ or a c c e ss” in pa

ra gra phs e ight a

n d twe lve of the injunc tion, whic h we a lso instruc t the distric t c ourt to strike
. 1. The injunc tion is not m o ot. Volunta

ry c e s sat ion of the c ha lle nge d c onduc t doe s not re n de r a c a se m oot unle ss “ it c an be sa id with a ssura nc e tha t the re is no re a sona

ble e xpe c tat ion . . . tha

t the a lle ge d viola

tion will re c ur and inte rim re lie f or e ve n ts ha

ve c om ple te ly and irre v oc a

bly e ra d ic ate d the e ffe c ts of the a lle ge d viola

tion.” Fik

r e v . FBI , 904 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th C ir. 2018) (quoting C ounty of Los Ange le

s v . Dav is , 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979)) (inte rna l quota

tion
m arks om itte d) (a l te ra tion in origina l). R im ini c onte n ds tha

t the injunc tion is moot only be c a use R im i ni ha s c e a se d

the c ha lle nge d c onduc t, na m e ly , unsa

n c tione d c opy ing of Ora c le ’ s softwa re . This a sse rtion is insuffic ie nt to m e e t R im i ni’ s

“ he avy burde n of pe rsua [ding] the c ourt tha t the c ha lle nge d c onduc t c annot 2re a s ona

bly be e xpe c te d to sta

rt up a ga in.” Id. (quoting Adarand C onstruc tors, Inc
. v . Slate r , 528 U.S. 216, 222 (2000)) (inte rna l quota tion m arks om itte d) (a lte ra tion in origina l). 2. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gra

nting the injunc tion. Se e e

Bay Inc . v . Me rc

Ex c hange , L.L.C
. , 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). The distric t c ourt a

p propria te l y we i ghe d the e

Bay fa c t ors, inc luding pe rm issibly finding tha

t R im ini’ s infringing c onduc t ha d a “ c a usa l c o nne c t ion” to the irre pa ra ble ha rm suffe re d by

Ora c le
. Pe rfe c t 10, Inc . v . Google , Inc
. , 653 F.3d 976, 982 (9th C i r. 2011). The c ourt pointe d to the fa c t tha t Ora c l e and R i m ini we re dire c t c om

p e titors, e xpla ine d tha

t R im ini wa s a

ble to ga in inc re a sing m arke t sha re by offe ring lowe r pric e s for its se rvic e tha n Ora c le offe re d, a

nd tha t the se lowe r pric e s we re possiblebe c a use R im ini’ s infringing c onduc t sa v e d the c om

pa ny tim e and m one y . This c o n c lusion wa s supporte d by the re c ord, inc luding R

im ini’ s own inte rna l e -m a ils. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gran ting theinjunc tion. Additiona lly , we note tha t, a s pa rt of its we ighing of the e Bay fa c tors, the distric t c o urt sta

te d tha t R i m i ni ha d “ c onsc ious disre ga rd” for Ora c le ’ s softwa

re c opy rights. R i m ini a rgue s tha t this c ontra d ic te d the jury ’ s finding tha t R im ini wa s an “ i nnoc e n t” infringe r. Assum ing, without de c iding, tha t the distric t c ourt 3viola

te d the Se ve nth Am e ndm e nt’ s R e e xam ination C la u se , se e Te utsc he r v . W oodson , 835 F.3d 936, 944 (9th C ir. 2016) (e xpla ining tha t tria l judge s m

ust

“ follow thejury ’ s im

p lic it or e xplic it fa c tua l de te rm inat ions in de c iding the e quita ble c l a im s” in orde r to a

void c o ntrave ning theR e e xam ination C la use ) (quoting L.A. Polic e Prote c tiv e Le aguev . Gate s , 995 F.2d 1469, 1473 (9th C ir. 1993))), a ny e rror wa s ha

rm le ss. Rim ini’ s m e nta l sta te wa s not ne c e ssa

ry to the distric t c o urt’ s de t e rm ination of irrepa ra ble injury , nor to the broa d e r we ighing of the e Bay fa c t o rs. The distric t c ourt’ s de c ision would sta nd pre c ise ly

the sa m e without this sta

te m e nt. Nor did Ora c le wa i ve the issue of ha rm le ssne ss, a s R im ini a ddre s se d the issue in its open ing brie f. 3. R im ini a lso c o nte n ds tha t the injunc tion is overbroa d . W e a g re e in two re spe c ts. First, re stric ting “ loc a l hosting” for the J.D. Edwa

rds a nd Sie be l lic e nc e s wa s e rror. The injunc tion e njoins “ loc a l hosting” a s to Pe o ple Soft, J.D. Edwa rds, a nd Sie be l. B ut only

the Pe ople Soft lic e nse lim its the lic e nse e to using the l ic e nse d

Softwa re “at its fac ilitie

s . . . .” (e m

pha s is a dde d), whic h is theba sis for the loc a l-hosting re q

uire m e nt. The J.D. Edwa rds a nd Sie be l lic e nse s do not c onta in suc h a

lim ita tion. Se eOrac leUSA, Inc . v . Rimini Stre e t, Inc
. , 879 F.3d 948, 959 (9th C ir. 2018) (“ The Pe ople Soft lic e nse is simila r to its J.D. Edwa

rds and Sie be l c o unte rparts, but it c onta ins a n a d ditiona l lim ita

tion a bout ‘ [the
4lic e nse e ’ s] fa c ilitie s.’ ” (a lte ra tion in origina l)), re v ’d in othe r part, 139 S. C t. 873 (2019). Ac c ordingly , it wa s e rror for the distric t c ourt to e njoin “ l oc a l hosting” for the J .D. Edwa

rds a nd Sie b e l lic e nc e s, a

nd we instruc t

the distric t c ourt to strike pa ra gra phs nineand thirte e n of the injunc t ion. Se c ond, the injunc tion’ s prohibition on “ a c c e ss[ing] ” sourc e c ode is ove rbroa d. “ Ac c e ssing” a c opy righte d work is not a

n infringing a c tivity

unde r the C opy right Ac t. Se e 17 U.S.C . § 106 (2002). Even if the prohibition on a c c e ss is
m e ant to pre v e nt c opy ing, it is unne c e ssa ry , a s c opy i ng is sepa

rate ly prohibite d by the i njunc tion. Se e C

olumbia Pic ture

s Indus., Inc . v . Fung , 710 F.3d 1020, 1049 (9th C ir. 2013) (“ [I] njunc t ive re lie f should be no m ore burde nsom e to the de fe nda n t tha n ne c e ssa ry to providec om

ple t e re lie f to the pla intiffs be fore the c ourt.” (inte rna l c i tations omitte d)). C onse que ntly , we instruc t the distric t c ourt to strike the words “ o r a c c e ss” from pa ra gra phs e ight a

nd twe lve of the injunc tion. In a ll othe r re spe c ts, the injunc tion is not ove rbroa d
. 4. The injunc tion is not im pe rm issibly

va gue . The injunc tion c le arly se ts out wha t c onduc t is re stric te d, na

m e ly tha t R im ini sha ll not rep roduc e , pre pa re de rivative works from , or distribute softwa re e xc e pt “ to support the

spe c ific lic e nse e ’ s own inte rna l da t a proc e ssing ope ra tions.” It is the re fore not im pe rm issibly va gue . 55. W e a l so a ffirm the attorne y s’ fe e s a

ward. First, theprior pa

ne l’ s m andate in Orac le , 879 F.3d 948, did not re quire a pportionm e nt: thepa

ne l re ve rse d a

nd re m ande d the fe e award for “ re c onside ra tion in light of Ora c le ’ s m ore lim ite d suc c e ss a

t litiga tion,” id . at 965, a

nd the distric t c o urt c le arly re c onside re d the a m ount of theaward a

nd re -a pplie d the attorne y s’ fe e s fa c tors. The re fore , the distric t c o urt did a s instruc te d by this c ourt. Se c ond, the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion by

not a pportioning the fe e a ward. As the pre va iling pa rty , Ora c le c ould re c ove r only attorne y s’ fe e s inc urre d in litiga

ting its c opy

right c la im s or “ re late d c la im s.” The Traditional C at Ass’n, Inc . v . Gilbre ath , 340 F.3d 829, 833 (9th C ir. 2003). Thedistric t c ourt pe rm issibly

c onc lude d tha

t the c la im s “ ‘ involve [d] a c om m on c ore of fa c ts’ [and we re ] b a s e d on ‘ re lat e d le ga l the orie s,’ ” Mc C ow n v . C ity of Fontana , 565 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th C ir. 2009) (quoting He n sle y v . Ec k e r hart , 461 U.S. 424, 453 (1983)), be c a

use the “ a c tion wa s first a nd fore m ost a

c opy right infringe m e n t a c tion.” Ac c ordingly , it wa s within the distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to de te rm ine tha t a pportionm e n t wa s not re quire d be y ond the twe nty pe rc e nt re duc tion. Se e C re ativ e C omputing v . Ge tloade d.c o m LLC , 386 F.3d 930, 937 (9th C ir. 2004) (e xpla ining that , e ve n though the

pla i ntiff lost on its La

nha m Ac t c la i m s, “ [a ] lloc ation is not re quire d whe re the re is a

‘ c om m on c ore of fa c ts’ tha

t re quire s substa

ntia lly the 6sam e e xpe nse on pre v a iling a nd unsuc c e s sful c la im s” ). Ac c ordingly , the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in c a lc ulating the award.

• ! • The judgm e nt of the distric t c ourt is a ffirm e d, inc luding its injunc tion a nd award of attorne y s’ fe e s, e xc e pt tha t pa ra gra phs nineand thirte e n of the injunc tion, and the words “ or a c c e ss” in pa ra gra phs e ight a

nd twe lve , a

re va c ate d a

nd orde re d stric ke n. The pa

rtie s sha ll be ar the ir own c osts on a ppe a l. AFFIRM E D in par t, V ACAT E D in par t, and RE M ANDE D .

7