Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al.

The jury found petitioner’s copyright infringement to have been “innocent,” meaning that petitioner “did not know” and “had no reason to know” that its conduct was infringing. In violation of the Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause, the district court instead found that petitioner acted in “conscious disregard” of respondents’ copyrights—and on that basis entered a permanent injunction. The Ninth Circuit excused that constitutional error as “harmless” on the ground that consideration of an infringer’s mental state is “not necessary” under the equitable framework of eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). The question presented is: Whether courts must take into account a jury’s finding of an infringer’s mental state in considering injunctive relief under the Copyright Act.