Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle Int'l Corp.

Decision Date14 September 2020
Docket NumberCase No. 2:14-cv-01699-LRH-DJA
Citation473 F.Supp.3d 1158
Parties RIMINI STREET, INC., Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, v. ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORP., and Oracle America, Inc., Defendants/Counterclaimants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Nevada

Blaine H. Evanson, Pro Hac Vice, Casey J. McCracken, Pro Hac Vice, Stephen C. Whittaker, Jeffrey T. Thomas, Pro Hac Vice, Michele Maryott, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Daniel B. Winslow, Pro Hac Vice, Rimini Street, Inc., Pleasanton, CA, David J. Niegowski, Pro Hac Vice, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Joseph A. Gorman, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, Gretchen Harting Kleinman, Michael Hitsky, Pro Hac Vice, Farah Shirin Anthony, John P. Reilly, Pro Hac Vice, Scott S. Hoffmann, Rimini Street, Inc., W. West Allen, Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC, Las Vegas, NV, Lisa DeBrosse Johnson, Pro Hac Vice, Boston, MA, Megan K. Bannigan, Pro Hac Vice, James J. Pastore, Pro Hac Vice, DeBevoise & Plimpton LLP, New York, NY, Robert H. Reckers, Pro Hac Vice, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Houston, TX, Eric Vandevelde, Samuel Grant Liversidge, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jeffrey P. Cunard, Pro Hac Vice, DeBevoise & Plimpton LLP, Mark A. Perry, Pro Hac Vice, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant.

Beko O. Reblitz-Richardson, Pro Hac Vice, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Steven C. Holtzman, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Benjamin Patrick Smith, David Richard Kocan, Pro Hac Vice, John A. Polito, Pro Hac Vice, Sharon Ruth Smith, Lucy Wang, Pro Hac Vice, Zachary Hill, Pro Hac Vice, Lindsey McGrath Shinn, Frank Kennamer, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kathleen Hartnett, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley LLP, San Francisco, CA, Deborah K. Miller, Pro Hac Vice, Dorian E. Daley, Pro Hac Vice, James C. Maroulis, Pro Hac Vice, Oracle Corporation, Redwood City, CA, Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Pro Hac Vice, Hawxhurst Harris, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Jacob J.O. Minne, Pro Hac Vice, Morgan Lewis, Palo Alto, CA, Karen L. Dunn, Pro Hac Vice, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington D.C., DC, William A. Isaacson, Pro Hac Vice, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, Richard J. Pocker, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant/Counterclaimant Oracle International Corporation.

Beko O. Reblitz-Richardson, Pro Hac Vice, Sean Phillips Rodriguez, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Benjamin Patrick Smith, David Richard Kocan, Pro Hac Vice, John A. Polito, Sharon Ruth Smith, Zachary Hill, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Kathleen Hartnett, Pro Hac Vice, Cooley LLP, Lindsey McGrath Shinn, Morgan Lewis, San Francisco, CA, Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, Pro Hac Vice, Hawxhurst Harris, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Karen L. Dunn, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington D.C., DC, Richard J. Pocker, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, William A. Isaacson, Pro Hac Vice, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant/Counterclaimant Oracle America, Inc.

ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff and counterdefendant Rimini Street, Inc. ("Rimini") and defendants and counterclaimants Oracle International Corp. and Oracle America, Inc. (collectively "Oracle") have filed a total of 7 motions for partial summary judgment: Oracle filed five motions for partial summary judgment (ECF Nos. 881 (886-s); 888 (896-s); 898 (904-s); 916 (936-s); & 930 (941-s)), and Rimini filed two motions (ECF Nos. 910 (913-s); & 917 (927-s)).1 The parties have responded and replied to all motions. For the reasons laid out in this Order, the Court grants in part and denies in part the parties’ motions.

I. BACKGROUND

This is a massive lawsuit which follows a prior massive lawsuit. Over sixty attorneys have been admitted to represent the two sides in this case alone, approximately thirty for each side, and for the pending seven motions, the briefings exceed 2,800 pages and the supporting exhibits, declarations, and appendices exceed 43,000 pages.

While this case has been pending since 2014, it is comparable to the parties’ initial lawsuit, Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. , Case Number 2:10-cv-00106-LRH-VCF.2 This prior lawsuit likewise involved a voluminous record, plus a month long jury trial, appeals to the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court, and cost the parties tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and costs. And Oracle I continues today by way of permanent injunction.

Oracle develops, manufactures, and licenses computer software, particularly Enterprise Software Programs. Unlike traditional software, entities interested in purchasing Oracle's software do not purchase the software outright, but rather purchase a license to use the software throughout the duration of the license agreement. Also, unlike traditional software that is installed on a single computer, enterprise software is hosted on servers that allow everyone within the organization to access it simultaneously. One of the key features of enterprise software is its customizability; the software can be modified to fit the specific needs of the organization licensing it. Enterprise software is routinely updated with service packs and patches that increase functionality and performance, correct and fix bugs, and improve security. Oracle provides this support service to its licensees for an additional cost on top of the licensing fees, but the licensees can and often do seek third party service providers, such as Rimini, to perform that service instead.

Both this case and the previous litigation (Oracle I ) concern Rimini's unauthorized copying of Oracle's enterprise software into and from development environments. A development environment allows a software engineer to copy the enterprise software being used by a licensee and update it, patch bugs, and test improvements before implementing the new version into the licensee's computer system. Oracle's licenses generally allow the licensee to copy the software into a development environment and have an in-house IT team service it themselves or otherwise contract with Oracle to perform the same services. Alternatively, the licenses also generally allow for a third-party service provider, like Rimini, to copy the software in place of the licensee and customize it for the licensee. But the licenses do not allow a third-party service provider to use one customer's software to support other customers. This is what Rimini has, in part, been accused of doing here and what a jury, as well as the Court, has previously determined it did in the past.

A. The Previous (and Ongoing) Litigation

Oracle first sued Rimini in 2010, alleging that Rimini infringed several of Oracle's copyrights when it, inter alia , used work that it completed for one client for the benefit of other clients, which Oracle claimed was a violation of its software copyrights. At issue in Oracle I were four of Oracle's business enterprise software products: J.D. Edwards, Siebel, PeopleSoft, and (Oracle) Database. Following the filing of dispositive motions, the Court granted summary judgment to Oracle on some of its copyright infringement claims, the key finding being that Rimini violated the "facilities restriction" within PeopleSoft's standard licensing agreement when it hosted its clients’ development environments on its own computer systems, a process called "local hosting." Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. , 6 F.Supp.3d 1086, 1096–98 (D. Nev. 2014).3 Later at trial, a jury found in favor of Oracle on other copyright infringement claims for J.D. Edwards and Siebel. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed both this Court's grant of summary judgment and most of the jury's verdict, only reversing the jury's determination regarding violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act ("CDAFA") and Nevada Computer Crimes Law ("NCCL"). Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. , 879 F.3d 948, 962 (9th Cir. 2018).4 The Ninth Circuit also upheld this Court's decision to grant Oracle the "full costs" of the litigation, which included expert witness fees, e-discovery expenses, and jury consultant fees. Id. at 965–66. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on the latter issue, reversing the Ninth Circuit and holding that the Copyright Act only allows a district court to authorize awards for litigation expenses expressly listed in the costs statute. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. , ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 873, 203 L.Ed.2d 180 (2019).

Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in March 2019, this Court granted Oracle's motion for a permanent injunction, which prevents Rimini from continuing the practices which prompted Oracle's lawsuit. Oracle I , ECF No. 1164. On February 27, 2019, Oracle filed a motion to reopen discovery to determine if Rimini had been complying with this court's permanent injunction. Oracle I , ECF No. 1199. Oracle claims that it has evidence that demonstrates that Rimini has been circumventing this court's permanent injunction. Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach granted Oracle's motion, and subsequently, Oracle filed several motions to compel. Oracle I , ECF Nos. 1237, 1290. Following voluminous briefing and oral argument, Judge Ferenbach granted in part and denied in part Oracle's motions to compel on September 3, 2019, and January 22, 2020, respectively. Oracle I , ECF Nos. 1250, 1307. Currently pending before the undersigned is Oracle's objections to Judge Ferenbach's January 22 ruling. Oracle I , ECF Nos. 1311, 1313-s. While the parties were engaged in this discovery dispute, on August 16, 2019, the Ninth Circuit upheld the majority of the permanent injunction and the grant of attorney's fees to Oracle. Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. , 783 Fed. Appx. 707 (9th Cir. 2019) (unpublished).

B. The Current Litigation

Prior to the October 2015 jury trial in Oracle I , Rimini filed a complaint against Oracle (this action) for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Lee v. Luxottica Retail N. Am., Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • 16 Junio 2021
    ..."], judg. vacated and remanded in part on other grounds (9th Cir. 2012) 679 F.3d 1170, 1178-1179 ; Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corp. (D. Nev. 2020) 473 F.Supp.3d 1158, 1226 ; Rosen v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (N.D.Cal. 2016) 164 F.Supp.3d 1165, 1178 ; AngioScore, Inc. v. TriR......
  • Watson v. City of Henderson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 23 Septiembre 2021
    ... ... Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 ... Exec. Jet Mgmt., ... Inc. , 615 F.3d 1151, 1157 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotation ... Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle Int'l Corp. , 473 ... ...
  • Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini St., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 31 Marzo 2021
    ...issued its 94-page order granting in part and denying in part these motions. Rimini II, ECF No. 1253; Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corp., 473 F.Supp.3d 1158 (D. Nev. 2020). In relevant part, the Court held that Rimini had infringed four of Oracle's copyrights—PeopleSoft HRMS ......
  • MST Mgmt., LLC v. Chi. Doughnut Franchise Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nevada
    • 9 Febrero 2022
    ...Another judge in this district recently came to the same conclusion regarding the scope of the DTPA. Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle Int'l Corp. , 473 F. Supp. 3d 1158, 1225 (D. Nev. 2020).51 ECF No. 1 at ¶ 11.52 ECF No. 29 at 21.53 Nelson v. Heer , 123 Nev. 217, 163 P.3d 420, 426 (2007).54 Id. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT