Oracle USA, Inc. v. Rimini Street, Inc. is a copyright case that Oracle filed in January 2010 in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. The defendants were Rimini Street, Inc., a third-party provider of support for Oracle enterprise software, and Rimini’s chief executive, Seth Ravin.[1][5] Rimini later brought its own declaratory judgment action, Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle International Corp., filed in October 2014, and Oracle counterclaimed.[3][6] Rimini’s filings refer to the two cases as “Rimini I” and “Rimini II”.[4]
The Ninth Circuit wrote in 2024 that the parties had “waged a pitched copyright war” for over a decade, fought “up and down all levels of the federal judiciary”.[3] The litigation produced a Supreme Court ruling on recoverable costs in 2019 and several Ninth Circuit decisions on the scope of Oracle’s software licenses. It ended in a confidential settlement agreement dated 7 July 2025.[2][4]
Background
According to the Ninth Circuit, Oracle licenses its enterprise software for a substantial one-time payment and sells annually renewed maintenance contracts that include software updates. Rimini provided third-party support for Oracle’s software “in lawful competition with Oracle’s direct maintenance services”. To compete, Rimini also needed to supply software updates, and creating those updates “inherently required copying Oracle’s copyrighted software, which, unless allowed by license, would be copyright infringement”.[1]
Four Oracle product lines were at issue in Rimini I: J.D. Edwards, Siebel, PeopleSoft and Oracle Database. Their license terms differ.[1]
The dispute
Rimini I (2010)
Oracle alleged two kinds of infringement concerning J.D. Edwards and Siebel:[1]
- Direct use: how Rimini created development environments under a particular customer’s license for that customer.
- Cross use: creating development environments under one customer’s license to support other customers, including customers not yet signed.
Rimini argued that cross use was not infringement, because any organisation that might hire Rimini would itself hold a license to create development environments. It also raised a copyright misuse defence.[1]
For PeopleSoft, the dispute turned on a license clause limiting use to “Licensee’s internal data processing operations at its facilities”. Oracle accused Rimini of creating development environments on Rimini’s own computers rather than the licensees’ computers, a practice Rimini called “local hosting”.[1]
Oracle also claimed that Rimini and Ravin violated the California Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act (CDAFA) and the Nevada Computer Crimes Law (NCCL). The Ninth Circuit said that at least from late 2006 to early 2007 Rimini had used automated downloading tools on Oracle’s website “in direct contravention of the terms of use”.[1]
Rimini II (2014)
After the infringement findings in Rimini I, Rimini changed its processes. It sought a declaratory judgment that its revised process, “Process 2.0”, did not infringe. Oracle counterclaimed for copyright infringement and violations of the Lanham Act, seeking more than one billion dollars in damages, then abandoned its claims for monetary relief on the eve of trial. The case went to a bench trial on declaratory and equitable relief only.[3]
Decisions and outcome
Rimini I trial and 2018 appeal
Oracle won partial summary judgment on parts of its copyright claim, and a jury found for Oracle on others. The jury also found against Rimini and Ravin under the CDAFA and NCCL. It awarded $50,027,000 in damages. With prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, the total monetary judgment was $124,291,396.82, and the district court also issued a permanent injunction.[1]
On 8 January 2018 the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated in part:[1]
- It affirmed the copyright findings. Copying under one customer’s license for work performed for other customers, or for unknown or future customers, was not permitted by the licenses Oracle granted. For PeopleSoft, it decided the case on the narrow ground of local hosting. It affirmed infringement as to Database and rejected the copyright misuse argument.
- It reversed the state computer-law and Unfair Competition Law claims. It held that “taking data from a website, using a method prohibited by the applicable terms of use, when the taking itself generally is permitted, does not violate the CDAFA or the NCCL”. It reduced the damages accordingly.
- It vacated the injunction so the district court could consider the copyright claims alone, reversed Ravin’s liability for attorneys’ fees, and vacated the fee award against Rimini for reconsideration.
Supreme Court, 2019
Rimini challenged $12.8 million the district court had awarded for litigation expenses such as expert witnesses, e-discovery and jury consulting. On 4 March 2019 a unanimous Supreme Court held that “full costs” in §505 of the Copyright Act means the costs specified in the general costs statute, 28 U.S.C. §§1821 and 1920. Those categories do not include such expenses. The Ninth Circuit’s judgment was reversed in part and remanded.[2]
Rimini I injunction and contempt
The district court entered a permanent injunction in Rimini I in 2018. According to Rimini’s 2025 filing, it “remains in effect, defining the manner in which Rimini can provide support services for certain Oracle product lines”.[4] The Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the injunction in 2019. The district court later held Rimini in contempt of it on five issues, and in 2023 the Ninth Circuit upheld four of those findings.[3]
Rimini II trial and 2024 appeal
At summary judgment the district court held that Rimini had infringed Oracle’s PeopleSoft copyrights through cross use prohibited by the PeopleSoft licenses. After the bench trial, on 24 July 2023, it ruled that Rimini had created infringing derivative works, violated Oracle’s PeopleSoft and Database license agreements, and made statements that violated the Lanham Act. It ordered Rimini to delete various files and to issue a corrective press release.[3]
On 16 December 2024 the Ninth Circuit vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded:[3]
- Derivative works. The district court had adopted what the appeals court called an “interoperability” test: files that “only interact[] and [are] useable with” Oracle software were treated as derivative. The Ninth Circuit rejected that test. A derivative work “must actually incorporate Oracle’s copyrighted work, either literally or nonliterally.”
- §117(a) defence. It vacated the order striking Rimini’s defence under 17 U.S.C. §117(a), which lets the owner of a copy of a program make another copy in some circumstances. It said labelling an agreement a “license” is only one factor in deciding who owns a copy.
- Database “gap customer” environments. It vacated the ruling that 18 such environments on Rimini’s systems infringed. It held that the plain language of the license did not prohibit third-party support providers from possessing a copy of Oracle’s software to further a client’s internal business operations.
- Lanham Act. It reversed the false-advertising findings except for Rimini’s statement about “holistic security”. It treated some statements as puffery and others as not specific enough to be actionable. Judge Bybee dissented in part: he would have found actionable the statement that Oracle’s Critical Patch Updates “provide little or no value to customers and are no longer relevant”.
April 2025 injunction and July 2025 settlement
Rimini’s filing states that on 24 April 2025 the district court issued a new permanent injunction in Rimini II. It requires Rimini to comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and to refrain from making four statements.[4]
On 7 July 2025 Rimini, Ravin and Oracle entered into a confidential settlement agreement described as “a full, final, complete and global settlement of the subject matter of the Rimini II case”. “No Parties admit any liability or wrongdoing.” The disclosed terms are:[4]
- Oracle would remit to Rimini about $37.8 million of the roughly $58.7 million in attorneys’ fees and costs Rimini had paid to Oracle in late 2024. Oracle completed the remittance on 8 July 2025.
- Rimini must complete its previously announced wind-down of support for Oracle PeopleSoft software by 31 July 2028.
- Within 14 days after Rimini certifies that the wind-down is complete, the parties will jointly file a stipulation to dismiss Rimini II with prejudice.
- The Rimini I and Rimini II injunctions remain in effect, and the district court keeps jurisdiction to enforce them.
The filing states that Rimini I “has run its course through trial and all appeals”.[4] Under the published terms, the stipulated dismissal of Rimini II follows Rimini’s certification that the wind-down is complete, which is due by 31 July 2028.
Significance for software licensing and SAM practice
- License wording decides what a service provider may copy. The Ninth Circuit decided Rimini I on the text of each product’s license. The J.D. Edwards and Siebel licenses did not permit copying for other customers. The PeopleSoft “at its facilities” clause restricted where copies could be made.[1] In Rimini II, the court read the Database license language as not prohibiting a third-party provider from holding a copy to further a client’s internal operations.[3] An organisation using third-party support can compare the actual clauses in its own agreements with these rulings. See Oracle technical support policies and Software maintenance and support.
- Third-party support is lawful competition. The Ninth Circuit described Rimini’s business as lawful competition with Oracle. The infringement findings concerned specific copying practices, not the provision of support itself.[1]
- Website terms of use and computer-crime statutes. The 2018 ruling held that breaching website terms of use by downloading with automated tools, where the download itself was generally permitted, did not violate the California or Nevada computer-crime statutes.[1]
- Derivative works and interoperability. The 2024 opinion holds that in the Ninth Circuit, interoperability alone does not make a program a derivative work. The work must incorporate protected expression from the original.[3]
- Recoverable costs. Since the 2019 Supreme Court ruling, “full costs” under the Copyright Act are limited to the categories in the general costs statute. Expert and e-discovery expenses fall outside them.[2]
Lessons learned
- Compare the licence with the provider’s practices. The Ninth Circuit decided Rimini I on the text of each product’s licence, and an organisation using third-party support can compare the actual clauses in its own agreements with these rulings.[1] Findings concerned specific copying practices, not the provision of support itself.[1]
- Cross use is not covered. Copying under one customer’s licence for work performed for other customers, or for unknown or future customers, was held not permitted by the J.D. Edwards and Siebel licences.[1]
- Where copies sit can matter. The PeopleSoft clause limiting use to the licensee’s operations “at its facilities” restricted where copies could be made, which decided the local hosting issue.[1] By contrast, the 2024 opinion read the Database licence as not prohibiting a third-party provider from holding a copy to further a client’s internal operations.[3]
- Review each product separately. The four Oracle product lines at issue had different licence terms, and the courts reached different results for each.[1][3] The injunctions that remain in effect after the 2025 settlement also define how Rimini may support certain Oracle products.[4]