ORACLE USA, INC., ET AL V. RIMINI STREET, INC., No. 22-15188 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
This civil contempt dispute is the fallout from the protracted copyright infringement litigation between Oracle USA, Inc. and Rimini Street, Inc.—now in its thirteenth year. In the underlying case, the district court entered a permanent injunction that enjoined Rimini from various infringing practices. Years later, the district court identified ten potential violations of the permanent injunction (“Issues 1– 10”), and ultimately held Rimini in contempt on five. Rimini was ordered to pay $630,000 in statutory sanctions plus attorneys’ fees. On appeal, Rimini argued that the contempt order should be reversed and that the sanctions should be vacated.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the district court’s order. The permanent injunction generally prohibited Rimini from reproducing, preparing derivative works from, or distributing certain Oracle software. The district court identified ten potential violations of the permanent injunction (Issues 1–10) and held Rimini in contempt on five (Issues 1-4, 8). The panel affirmed the district court’s finding of contempt on Issues 1-4. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding Rimini in contempt for hosting Oracle files on its computer systems (Issue 1). The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Rimini in contempt for violating the injunction against the “cross use” of development environments (Issues 2, 3, and 4). Reversing the finding of contempt on Issue 8, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion in holding Rimini in contempt for creating copies of an Oracle Database file on its systems.
Court Description: Civil Contempt The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the district court’s order holding Rimini Street, Inc., in civil contempt and imposing sanctions for violations of a permanent injunction in copyright infringement litigation between Rimini and Oracle USA, Inc.
The permanent injunction generally prohibited Rimini from reproducing, preparing derivative works from, or distributing certain Oracle software. The district court identified ten potential violations of the permanent injunction (Issues 1–10), and held Rimini in contempt on five (Issues 1-4, 8).
The panel affirmed the district court’s finding of contempt on Issues 1-4. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding Rimini in contempt for hosting Oracle files on its computer systems (Issue 1). The panel declined to adopt the test set in TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., 646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) (holding that, in a patent infringement case, the district court must determine whether a company’s new devices were more than colorably different from the original infringing ones before deciding whether the company engaged in new infringing activity in a contempt proceeding). The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Rimini in contempt for violating the injunction against the “cross use” of development environments (Issues 2, 3, and 4).
Reversing the finding of contempt on Issue 8, the panel held that the district court abused its discretion in holding Rimini in contempt for creating copies of an Oracle Database file on its systems.
On Issues 7 and 9, the district court concluded that Rimini did not violate the permanent injunction but ruled that Rimini was not permitted to copy even snippets or partial segments of Oracle source code. The panel vacated the district court’s order on Issues 7 and 9 to the extent it read the permanent injunction to enjoin de minimis copying.
The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion or impose an impermissibly punitive sanctions award for each of six willful and one non-willful contempt findings. Given the reversal on Issue 8, however, the panel vacated and remanded the sanctions award for recalculation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.