Google has moved that its patent infringement case with Oracle be declared a mistrial following only partial findings of infringement from a San Francisco court.
The jurors found that while Google had infringed upon Oracle Java API copyright in certain claims on the case, other claims of infringement made by Oracle regarding documentation were not valid.
According to early reports from the court, Google attorneys intend to file a motion asking that a mistrial be declared in light of the partial verdict.
The verdict indicates what many industry experts have speculated in recent days, that the two firms' ongoing fight over intellectual property use and access to the Java platform is far from over. Even before the partial verdict had been delivered, many believed that an appeal of the ruling by either party was likely.
Florian Mueller, an intellectual property activist and expert, noted that the jury seemed to be deadlocked over the definition of "fair use" and Google's claim that its platform fell under such protections.
"I didn't like some of the definitions of the "fair use" factors, such as what does or does not constitute "transformative" use (again, the hurdle for "fair use" is actually a higher one than what the jury instructions made it appear to be," Mueller wrote in a post to his FOSS patents blog.
"With better jury instructions, I believe the jury would have thrown out "fair use" unanimously."
Shortly after the ruling, Google argued that the actual findings of the jury were limited to nine lines of code which the company claims hold no value.
"We appreciate the jury's efforts, and know that fair use and infringement are two sides of the same coin," a Google spokesperson said in a statement.
"The core issue is whether the APIs here are copyrightable, and that's for the court to decide. We expect to prevail on this issue and Oracle's other claims."
The two firms have long been engaged in legal wrangling over the use of Java content in the Android platform. Oracle has contended that the platform is operating without proper licensing, while Google believes its code is well clear of any patent violations.