This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
Oracle America, Inc. owns a copyright in Java SE, a computer platform that uses the Java programming language.
In 2005 Google acquired Android and copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from the Java SE program.
The Federal Circuit initially held that the copied lines were copyrightable, but on appeal it reversed that decision.
The Supreme Court held that Google’s copying of the Java API declaring code was a fair use of that material as a matter of law.
Background and question before the Court
The central question before the Court was whether Google’s copying of the Java API declaring code constituted fair use.
What each side argues
Google LLC
According to Google LLC, google argues that the merger doctrine resolves the copyrightability question because Oracle’s copyright covers only the expression, not the functional idea.
According to Google LLC, google contends that reusing software interfaces is essential for modern interoperable software and that such reuse is a fair use.
Google maintains that its copying was transformative because the code was used to study and understand how the machine worked, not to create a competing product.
Google argues that the declaring code of an API is not copyrightable, only the implementing code is.
According to Google, google points out that multiple circuit courts have held that the distinction between declaring code and implementing code is recognized and that declaring code is not protected.
- [1] da781916ae14d949085a-r1-0ff88de86221334e.pdf, p. 4
- [2] da781916ae14d949085a-r1-0ff88de86221334e.pdf, p. 5
- [3] da781916ae14d949085a-r1-0ff88de86221334e.pdf, p. 46
- [4] da781916ae14d949085a-r1-0ff88de86221334e.pdf, p. 54
- [5] da781916ae14d949085a-r1-0ff88de86221334e.pdf, p. 55
- [6] da781916ae14d949085a-r1-0ff88de86221334e.pdf, p. 55
Oracle America, Inc.
According to Oracle, oracle asserts that Section 102(b) bars copyright protection for the functionality of computer code, including methods of operation.
Oracle argues that the method of operation of Java SE cannot be copyrighted.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Sotomayor asked what Google’s definition of “interoperability” was, noting it seemed one‑directional.
Justice Thomas asked whether the Court needed to decide more than the declaring code.
Justice Thomas later asked whether the Federal Circuit applied the proper review standard.
Justice Breyer asked whether copyright protects computer programs but not methods of operation.
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court held that Google’s copying of the Sun Java API declaring code was a fair use of that material as a matter of law.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that fair use can be a crucial factor in determining the lawful scope of computer program copyright, especially for technologies that blend expressive and functional elements.
According to United States, amicus briefs emphasized that without copyright protection for software, developers would lack incentives to create new code.
The dissent highlighted the massive economic impact of Google’s copying, noting billions of dollars in revenue and market disruption for Oracle.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4f4682a1565f3e3e2aad-r1-23827beee1980fe8.pdfopinion
- da781916ae14d949085a-r1-0ff88de86221334e.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 27, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.