## Facts

- Oracle owned the Java SE platform, including application programming interfaces (APIs) used by programmers to invoke prewritten functions through standardized method declarations and organization.
- Google developed the Android mobile operating system and used the Java programming language to attract programmers.
- To permit programmers to write Android apps using familiar commands and structure, Google copied about 11,500 lines of Java SE API “declaring code” and the related structure, sequence, and organization for 37 API packages.
- Oracle sued Google for copyright and patent infringement; the patent claims dropped out, leaving copyright claims focused on the copied API declaring code and organization.
- A first jury found copying but did not reach a verdict on fair use; the district court then held the relevant API material uncopyrightable as a method of operation and entered judgment for Google.
- The Federal Circuit reversed on copyrightability and later reversed a second jury’s fair-use verdict for Google, holding the use was not fair use as a matter of law.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari on (1) copyrightability of a software interface and (2) fair use in using such an interface to create a new program.

## Issues

1. Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface such as API declaring code and its organization.
2. Whether Google’s copying of Java API declaring code for use in Android constituted fair use.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit in a 6–2 decision.
- The Court assumed, without deciding, that the Java API declaring code was copyrightable.
- The Court held Google’s copying was fair use as a matter of law.
- The Court treated fair use as a mixed question of law and fact, with the ultimate fair-use determination reviewed de novo.
- Applying the four statutory factors, the Court concluded the balance favored Google, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

## Legal Principles

- Courts may assume copyrightability arguendo and resolve a case on fair use when that is sufficient to decide the dispute.
- Fair use is a mixed question of law and fact; appellate courts may review the ultimate fair-use conclusion de novo while respecting supported factual findings.
- In software cases, the “nature of the work” may favor fair use where copied material functions as an organizational system and derives significant value from programmers’ investment in learning it, placing it farther from core copyright expression.
- “Purpose and character” may favor fair use when copying enables programmers to use familiar commands in a new computing environment and supports creation of new programs, even if the use is commercial.
- “Amount and substantiality” may favor fair use when the copying is limited relative to the whole and reasonably tied to the transformative purpose, including functional necessity to achieve compatibility for users.
- “Market effect” analysis should avoid defining the market so broadly that it effectively grants control over follow-on programs; speculative licensing markets may carry limited weight where the alleged harm would function as a veto over further development.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Google’s limited copying of Java API declaring code to allow programmers to apply existing skills in the Android smartphone environment was fair use, while leaving unresolved whether API declaring code is copyrightable in the first instance.


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