Rimini Street, Inc. a global provider of enterprise software products and services, and the leading third-party support provider for Oracle and SAP software products, provided the following statement relating to Rimini Street v. Oracle, which is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court:
“The Solicitor General of the United States recently filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court case of Rimini Street v. Oracle. The Solicitor General’s brief endorses Rimini Street’s interpretation of the Copyright Act’s cost-shifting provision, concluding that ‘[Oracle’s] contrary reading … stretches [the statute] beyond what its text can bear.’ The brief further concludes that the U.S District Court award of $12.8 million in non-taxable litigation expenses to Oracle, and the subsequent affirmance by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, were erroneous and should be reversed.
The case is expected to be argued in early 2019. If the Supreme Court reverses the decision, Oracle will be ordered to refund the $12.8 million to Rimini Street. This refund would be in addition to the $21.5 million Oracle was previously ordered to refund to Rimini Street by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which Oracle paid in March 2018.
Rimini Street has appealed the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming an award of non-taxable costs as part of the final judgment awarded to Oracle in 2016. On September 27, 2018, the Supreme Court granted Rimini Street’s petition for review. On appeal, Rimini Street argues that the award of $12.8 million in non-taxable costs is in direct conflict with decisions of other federal circuit courts and the Supreme Court.
In addition to the United States Solicitor General, the prestigious American Intellectual Property Law Association also filed an amicus curiae brief in the case, stating that ‘[t]he interests of the copyright registration system, certainty, and predictability weigh against permitting … [statutory] awards for non-taxable costs. This constraint provides greater uniformity and better aligns with the policies underlying the Copyright Act.’
Rimini Street’s position is also supported in amici curiae briefs filed by Professor Patrick Gillen, a scholar who has written on the history and scope of federal cost-shifting statutes, and a group of law school professors and scholars of corpus linguistics, who research the use and meaning of language. All of these amici curiae argue that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision was erroneous.
Rimini Street looks forward to the argument before the Supreme Court, and is confident that it will result in a reversal of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judgment on non-taxable costs, achieve national consistency to interpretation of the Copyright Act by courts, and bring the refund of $12.8 million previously paid by Rimini Street to Oracle in 2016.”