Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.

• Decision Date: 14 August 2018
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-(VCF)
• Citation: 324 F.Supp.3d 1157
• Parties: ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation; Oracle America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Oracle International Corporation, a California corporation, Plaintiffs, v. RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation; Seth Ravin, an individual, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

324 F.Supp.3d 1157

ORACLE USA, INC., a Colorado corporation; Oracle America, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Oracle International Corporation, a California corporation, Plaintiffs,

v.RIMINI STREET, INC., a Nevada corporation; Seth Ravin, an individual, Defendants.

Case No. 2:10-cv-0106-LRH-(VCF)

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

Signed August 14, 2018

Beko O. Reblitz-Richardson, Pro Hac Vice, Kathleen Hartnett, Pro Hac Vice, Steven Holtzman, Pro Hac Vice, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Oakland, CA, Karen L. Dunn, Pro Hac Vice, Gregory J. Dubinsky, Pro Hac Vice, Meryl C. Governski, Pro Hac Vice, William A. Isaacson, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Washington, DC, Richard J. Pocker, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Dorian E. Daley, Pro Hac Vice, Deborah K. Miller, Pro Hac Vice, James C. Maroulis, Pro Hac Vice, Oracle Corporation, Redwood City, CA, John A. Polito, Pro Hac Vice, Nitin Jindal, Pro Hac Vice, Thomas S. Hixson, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Blaine H. Evanson, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Daniel B. Winslow, Pro Hac Vice, Pleasanton, CA, Joel D. Henriod, Daniel F. Polsenberg, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP, Leslie A.S. Godfrey, Brandon E. Roos, Mark G. Tratos, Greenberg Traurig LLP, W. West Allen, Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, John P. Reilly, Pro Hac Vice, Las Vegas, NV, Joseph A. Gorman, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Annie Y.S. Chuang, Pro Hac Vice, David J. Niegowski, Pro Hac Vice, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, San Francisco, CA, Lauren Blas, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher L.L.P., Los Angeles, CA, Mark A. Perry, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Peter Strand, Pro Hac Vice, B. Trent Webb, Pro Hac Vice, Ryan D. Dykal, Pro Hac Vice, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO, Michael Gray, Pro Hac Vice, Robert H. Reckers, Pro Hac Vice, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Houston, TX, for Defendants.

ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court are plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.; Oracle America, Inc.; and Oracle International Corporation's (collectively "Oracle") renewed motion for a permanent injunction (ECF No. 1117) and renewed motion for attorneys' fees (ECF No. 1118). Defendants Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini Street") and Seth Ravin ("Ravin") filed oppositions to the renewed motions (ECF Nos. 1130, 1145) to which Oracle replied (ECF Nos. 1139, 1152). A hearing on Oracle's renewed motions was held by the court on Monday, July 23, 2018.

I. Facts and Procedural History

This action has an extensive eight-year history. In brief, and relevant to the renewed motions, Oracle develops, manufactures, and licenses computer software. Oracle also provides after-license software support services to customers who license its copyrighted software. Defendant Rimini Street is a company that provides similar after-license software support services to customers licensing Oracle's copyrighted software and competes directly with Oracle to provide these services. Defendant Ravin is the owner and CEO of Rimini Street.

On January 25, 2010, Oracle filed a complaint for copyright infringement against defendants alleging that beginning in 2006, Rimini Street copied several of Oracle's copyright-protected software programs – including Oracle's copyrighted PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, and Siebel-branded Enterprise Software products – onto its own computer systems in order to provide after-license software support services to customers who licensed the copyrighted software programs. ECF No. 1. In June 2011, Oracle filed a second amended complaint alleging thirteen causes of action against defendants: (1) copyright infringement; (2) violation of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA"), 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a) ; (3) violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA"), Cal. Penal Code § 502 ; (4) violation of the Nevada Computer Crimes Law ("NCCL"), NRS § 205.4765 ; (5) breach of contract; (6) inducement of breach of contract; (7) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage; (8) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage; (9) unfair competition; (10) trespass to chattels; (11) unjust enrichment; (12) unfair practices; and (13) an accounting. ECF No. 146.

A jury trial was held on Oracle's claims for copyright infringement and violation of the California and Nevada computer access statutes from September 14 through October 13, 2015. On October 13, 2015, the jury returned its verdict and found that defendant Rimini Street engaged in copyright infringement on ninety-three of Oracle's copyrighted PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, and Siebel-branded Enterprise Software products. ECF No. 896. The jury also found that both defendants Rimini Street and Ravin violated the California and Nevada computer access statutes. Id. Ultimately, the jury awarded Oracle $35,600,000.00 for Rimini Street's copyright infringement and $14,427,000.00 for defendants' violation of the state computer access statutes. Id. After the jury verdict, Oracle filed a series of post-trial motions including a motion for a permanent injunction (ECF No. 900), a motion for prejudgment interest (ECF No. 910), and a motion for attorneys' fees (ECF No. 917) which were all granted by the court on September 21, 2016, after extensive briefing by the parties and a May 25, 2016 court hearing (ECF No. 1049). Defendants then appealed the jury verdict, along with the court's findings and orders, to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See ECF No. 1078.

On January 8, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision and opinion on defendants' appeal. Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. , 879 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2018). In its decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in-part, reversed in-part, vacated in-part, and remanded in-part the jury's verdict and the court's various orders in this action. In particular, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in full all of the court's and jury's findings related to Oracle's claim of copyright infringement against Rimini Street for all ninety-three copyright registrations at issue in this action. Id. at 953 ("[W]e affirm the judgment with respect to the copyright infringement claims. We also affirm the remedies with respect to those claims[.]"). The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the jury's $35.6 million judgment against Rimini Street for its infringement and the court's award of approximately $22.5 million in prejudgment interest against Rimini Street. Id. at 953, 963-964. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the jury's verdict against defendants Rimini Street and Ravin on Oracle's state law computer access claims (along with the related California UCL claim) and the jury's $14.4 million associated judgment on those claims. Id. at 953, 963. In light of its reversal on the state law claims, the Ninth Circuit vacated both the court's issuance of a permanent injunction and the court's award of attorneys' fees and remanded both of these issues for the limited purpose of determining whether the court would again issue a permanent injunction and/or an award of attorneys' fees based solely on Rimini Street's copyright infringement and without reference to the now reversed state law computer claims. Id. at 964-65.

In response to the Ninth Circuit's opinion, Oracle filed the present renewed motion for a permanent injunction to enjoin and restrain Rimini Street from any further infringement of Oracle's software copyrights (ECF No. 1117)¹ and renewed motion for attorneys' fees in the amount of $28,502,246.20 (ECF No. 1118). Both motions are addressed below.

II. Renewed Motion for Permanent Injunction (ECF No. 1117)

A. Effect of the Ninth Circuit Opinion

The parties dispute the breadth and effect of the Ninth Circuit's opinion and remand upon the court's analysis on the renewed motion for a permanent injunction. See ECF Nos. 1117, 1130. In its renewed motion, Oracle argues that the Ninth Circuit's remand on the issue of whether to grant a permanent injunction is limited and in no way undercut the basis for, or the court's prior analysis on, issuing a permanent injunction against Rimini Street to enjoin and restrain future copyright infringement. See ECF No. 1117. Rather, Oracle argues that the Ninth Circuit remand only requires the court to reevaluate the relevant injunction factors solely under the Copyright Act and without reference to the now reversed state law computer claims. Id. In opposition, Rimini Street argues that the Ninth Circuit's remand constitutes a true reversal and effective disapproval of the permanent injunction that was previously entered by the court and thus, the opinion precludes the court from entering any injunction in this case. See ECF No. 1130.

The court has reviewed the parties' documents, along with the Ninth Circuit's opinion, and agrees with Oracle's reading of the opinion and the limited nature of the remand. In its order, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the court entered a permanent injunction against Rimini Street "based on copyright infringement and ... based on alleged violations of the [state computer access statutes]." Id. The Ninth Circuit further recognized that in the court's order, "the district court assessed the [relevant] factors by reference to both the copyright and the [state computer access] claims, without considering separately the propriety of issuing an injunction as to the copyright claims alone." Id. The Ninth Circuit then concluded that "[b]ased on the record before us, we do not know how the district court would weigh the [relevant] factors with respect to the copyright claims alone. We express no view on the propriety or scope of any injunctive relief, which are matters committed to the district court's discretion in the first instance." Id. The court reads this express direction from the Ninth Circuit to mean that the court must examine the relevant permanent injunction factors based solely on Rimini Street's copyright...