## Facts

- Sun Microsystems developed the Java SE platform and owned copyrights in Java SE, including its application programming interfaces (APIs).
- Google acquired Android, Inc. in 2005 and sought to build a mobile platform that would attract programmers familiar with Java.
- License negotiations failed after Sun sought conditions (including interoperability requirements) that Google rejected.
- Google built Android independently but copied about 11,500 lines of Java “declaring code” from 37 API packages and replicated their structure, sequence, and organization.
- The copied declaring code functioned as interface declarations that allow programmers to invoke prewritten tasks; Google wrote its own implementing code for Android.
- The district court held the declaring code and organizational structure uncopyrightable as a “system or method of operation” under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b); the Federal Circuit reversed on copyrightability.
- After a jury found fair use, the Federal Circuit reversed and held no fair use as a matter of law; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the copied Java API declaring code and its structure, sequence, and organization are copyrightable.
2. If copyrightable, whether Google’s copying was fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit.
- The Court assumed, without deciding, that the Java API declaring code was copyrightable.
- Applying the four statutory fair-use factors, the Court held Google’s copying was fair use as a matter of law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the fair-use holding.

## Legal Principles

- A court may resolve a copyright dispute on fair-use grounds while assuming (without deciding) copyrightability.
- In software cases, the functional, interface-like character of code is relevant to fair use, including the extent to which the copied material serves as a method of operation for programmers.
- Fair use favors copying that is “transformative” in function and context, including reimplementation that enables programmers to use existing knowledge in a new computing environment.
- Copying limited to what is reasonably necessary to achieve a valid transformative purpose, particularly where implementing code is independently written, can support fair use under the third factor.
- Market-effect analysis considers not only licensing claims but also whether the challenged use causes the type of substantial substitution harm that fair use seeks to prevent, assessed in light of the record and the benefits of the new use.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Google’s limited copying of Java API declaring code to permit programmers to use familiar commands on the Android platform was fair use, while leaving unresolved at the Supreme Court level whether such API declarations are copyrightable.


Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021)