Opinion ID: 4557271
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Unauthorized Patch Installations

Text: The district court found an insurmountable “ambiguity” about whether the “Installed on Date” column reflected actual patch installations. The “ambiguity” stemmed from testimony by David Jensen, HPE’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness and a former HPE employee. In considering this testimony, the court failed to draw all reasonable inferences in Oracle’s favor. Jensen testified that the “Installed on Date” column had three possible meanings. It could mean the date that: (1) a kernel patch was installed, (2) a patch was released from the vendor, or (3) a file was updated on the system, such as a deletion, modification, or change to the file. Although Jensen testified that one could not know which meaning applied, he explained that the field prioritized the first ORACLE AMERICA V. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTER. 19 meaning. Only if actual installation data was unavailable would the entry reflect another meaning. This testimony supported the actual installation date meaning that Hicks attributed to “Installed on Date,” and it showed that that meaning was prioritized. 10 In light of this evidence, the district court could not properly assume in HPE’s favor that no entries reflected an actual installation. The court also reasoned that even if all entries reflected installations, “Oracle could not identify any particular nonsupported server on which a protected patch was improperly installed.” That conclusion stemmed from what the court viewed as a concession by Oracle during the summary judgment hearing. Oracle, however, effectively explained that it would prove unauthorized installations circumstantially. “Proof of copyright infringement is often highly circumstantial,” Loomis v. Cornish, 836 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted), “[b]ecause direct evidence of copying is rarely available,” Baxter v. MCA, Inc., 812 F.2d 421, 423 (9th Cir. 1987). Here, Oracle could identify protected patches and the spreadsheets showed installations that post-dated the release of a given patch. Drawing all reasonable inferences in Oracle’s favor, a jury could find that at least one entry reflected an actual patch installation. 10 The district court also stated that the data had a “false positive” because Oracle identified a patch installation on an off-contract server before Oracle had released that patch. Such an entry can be explained as the date of a file update, consistent with Jensen’s third meaning of “Installed on Date.” That “false positive” would not preclude that other entries reflect actual installations. 20 ORACLE AMERICA V. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTER.