Opinion ID: 4557271
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Symantec

Text: Summary judgment for HPE on the direct infringement claims concerning Symantec was also improper. The testimony from HPE’s employees permitted the reasonable inference that HPE installed a patch on an unsupported Symantec server. Indeed, the court acknowledged that testimony from HPE employees showed that HPE “had a practice of . . . installing patches downloaded from and delivered through Terix for Symantec’s off-contract servers.” Because Oracle may prove infringement circumstantially, Loomis, 836 F.3d at 994, Oracle did not need to further show that a particular patch was installed on a particular off-contract server to survive summary judgment. 12 HPE also argues that the district court held that Oracle did not show that any patch delivered to Symantec was protectable. If true, Oracle could not press infringement claims for such patches. Seven Arts, 733 F.3d at 1254 (observing that “ownership of a valid copyright” is a “basic 12 HPE argues that “many” Symantec servers ran older versions of Solaris that are not at issue and that Symantec also asked HPE to install patches received from Terix onto servers covered by Oracle support contracts. This would not preclude the reasonable inference that HPE performed an unauthorized patch installation. 22 ORACLE AMERICA V. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTER. element” of infringement) (citation omitted). The district court, however, does not appear to have granted summary judgment for HPE on this basis, but instead to have merely acknowledged HPE’s argument. Although we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008), the record supplied by the parties is insufficient for us do so. We have no obligation to mine the extensive district court record, and we decline to do so here. See In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 386 (9th Cir. 2010) (“It behooves litigants, particularly in a case with a record of this magnitude, to resist the temptation to treat judges as if they were pigs sniffing for truffles.”). The district court may revisit and clarify this issue on remand.