United States: Federal Circuit Holds Google's Copying Of Java API Not A Fair Use

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether Google's copying of Oracle's Java API for integration into its Android smartphone platform was fair use.  On March 27, 2018, the Court held that it was not, and reversed the lower court's determination notwithstanding a favorable jury verdict for Google on fair use.

Before considering the fair use factors, the Court recounted the various technical details of the Java API and Google's Android platform, as well as the various determinations, appeals and remands in the case.  The Court also delved into the appropriate standard of review, noting that fair use is mixed question of law and fact, and recounted the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Mgmt. LLC, No. 15-1509, 2018 WL 1143822, at *5 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018).  This decision held in part that where issues "utterly resist generalization" they should be treated as factual issues and accorded deference. 

Although many of the facts here may defy generalization, the Court found that modern Ninth Circuit precedent treated fair use as an "equitable rule of reason," and consequently, a legal question subject to de novo review, rejecting less "modern" U.S. Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent that treated fair use as a question of fact.  The Court reasoned that all fair use cases are "generally similar" and that assessing fair use in one case "guide[s] resolution of that question in all future cases."  It also found that while fair use is an equitable affirmative defense in the Ninth Circuit, Ninth Circuit courts routinely allow the fair use question to go to a jury, leading the Court to conclude that "in the Ninth Circuit, [only] disputed historical facts represent questions for the jury," and that a judge must decide the rest.  

Despite this conclusion, the Court held that the jury had in fact been given the entirety of the fair use determination, but that it was not reversible error under Ninth Circuit law.  Thus, the Court found any portion of the fair use jury verdict that went beyond questions of material historical fact were necessarily "advisory," that all jury findings on material historical facts were to be given deference, and that because the district court's jury form did not itemize factual findings, the parties would need to identify the disputed material historical facts for the Court, which were:  

  1. whether the use was commercial in nature;
  2. whether Google acted in bad faith in copying the work;
  3. whether there are functional aspects to the copyrighted work that make it less deserving of protection; and
  4. whether there was harm to the actual or potential markets for the copyrighted work.

Turning to the merits, the Court first considered the nature and character of the use, concluding that Google's use was commercial and that the jury's finding to the contrary was not supported by substantial evidence.  Specifically, the Court rejected the argument that the use was not commercial because Android was given out for free on smartphones, relying on A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1015 (9th Cir. 2001) for the propositions that free goods can still support commercial use and that commercial use does not require that the user receive a direct economic benefit.  The Court also noted that partially-non-commercial motivations for the use are irrelevant; rather, the question is whether the user stands to profit from the use without paying the customary price.

The Court then considered the transformative nature of Google's use, finding it was not transformative.  The Court enumerated four reasons for this holding: first, the use was not among those listed in the preamble to 17 U.S.C. § 107; second, the purpose of Google's use of the API packages was the same as Oracle's use (to use the Java language); third, Google did not alter the content or message of the copyrighted material; and fourth, Google's use of the API packages for smartphones did not constitute use in a new context.  

In so finding, the Court distinguished Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000), noting that Connectix's "modestly transformative" use (a new product using new code that allowed console games to be played on computers) was more transformative than Google's, which merely used the same code to attract software developers.  Nor was the Court swayed by the fact that Google wrote its own implementing code, finding that "[t]he relevant question is whether Google altered 'the expressive content or message of the original work' that it copied—not whether it rewrote the portions it did not copy." 

The Court also rejected Google's chief argument, namely, that use of the Java API on its smartphones was transformative.  First, the Court noted that Google was not the first to do this (and referenced Oracle's licensing activities with Nokia and others).  Second, the Court found that moving material to a new medium is not transformative.  In so finding, the Court discussed Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) to illustrate how changes in medium or context (in Perfect 10, moving the images to the reference tool) are irrelevant, and even an inevitable part of appropriation, whereas changes in purpose (in Perfect 10, repurposing the images into hyperlinks) can be transformative.  The Court also briefly considered bad faith, declining to disturb the jury's apparent conclusion that Google did not act in bad faith, but noting that good faith did not support fair use.  In sum, the Court found the first factor weighed against fair use.

Turning to the second factor, the nature of the copyrighted work, the Court found that this factor favored Google because there was substantial evidence for both conclusions.  Specifically, there was credible testimony that the Java API was a creative endeavor, and thus subject to strong protection, but also credible testimony that the Java API was primarily functional, and thus subject to lesser protection.  Accordingly, the Court was constrained, based on the jury verdict, to find that this factor favored Google, but also noted that this factor was not "terribly significant."

In considering the third fair use factor, the amount and substantiality of the use, the Court eschewed a strict quantitative approach, noting that such factor "looks to the quantitative amount and qualitative value of the original work used in relation to the justification for its use."  Reviewing the record, the Court found that it was reversible error to conclude that Google only used what it needed from the Java API, as the record indicated that Google used 11,330 lines more than the 170 lines necessary to write in Java.  The Court also dispelled the notion that Google used what it needed to achieve Java interoperability, a central theme earlier in the case, noting that Google had jettisoned such arguments after it was revealed that the Android platform was made to be incompatible with Java.  Ultimately, the Court found this factor neutral but, if anything, weighed slightly against fair use.

Turning to the fourth factor, the market impact of the use, the Court first noted the relationship between the first and fourth fair use factors, i.e. that non-transformative works are more likely to be market substitutes, and also noted that harm to the "market for potential derivative uses" was properly considered within the fourth factor.  The Court pointed to direct competition between Oracle and Google in the smartphone market, namely, four different smartphone-maker Oracle licensees that competed directly with Android phones.  As to the tablet market, the Court relied on Amazon's decision to drop Java SE from its Kindle following Android's release, and highlighted that "Amazon later used the fact that Android was free to negotiate a steep discount to use Java SE."  Thus, the Court found that Google's use severely impacted Oracle's licensing market and/or potential licensing market, rejecting Google's arguments that Oracle had no smartphone, no platform, and no intentions to develop either, as Oracle's clear interest in licensing Java for uses like Google's was sufficient to show market impact.

Balancing the factors, the Court concluded that Google's use was not fair, and that rote copying of the original code for substantially the same purpose as the original essentially superseded the original, and could not be fair.  Reversing the lower court's decision, the Court remanded for a trial on damages.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions