Oracle Contends Rimini Can't Legally Access its Support Website Without Oracle's Permission

By Pamela K. Fulmer

​As discussed in our previous blogpost, in Rimini I Oracle sued Rimini Street (“Rimini”) in the District Court of Nevada asserting a number of claims including copyright infringement.  The court found on summary judgment that the process to provide maintenance services that Rimini used prior to 2014 exceeded the scope of Rimini’s customers’ licenses.  The case then went to trial and Rimini lost to Oracle, although the jury did not find that Rimini was a willful copyright infringer.  The district court issued an injunction, which was largely affirmed by the Ninth Circuit.  Here’s how Rimini described the Rimini I litigation in a recent legal filing.

​Rimini sued Oracle in a separate lawsuit in the District of Nevada seeking a declaration from the court that the new Process 2.0 Rimini instituted to provide support & maintenance did not violate Oracle’s licenses.  Recently Oracle has attempted to claim in the Rimini I case that Process 2.0 also constitutes copyright infringement and is seeking to hold Rimini in contempt by claiming that Process 2.0 also violates the injunction.  Rimini has filed a motion to preclude Oracle from litigating issues involving Process 2.0 in the Rimini I litigation.  Instead, Rimini claims that such issues are rightfully decided only in the Rimini II litigation and were not actually litigated in Rimini I.  According to a recent Rimini filing:

​On May 2, 2017 Rimini filed its Third Amended Complaint in the Rimini II litigation seeking declaratory relief of non-infringement, non-hacking and copyright misuse by Oracle and asserting additional claims against Oracle for intentional interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, violation of the Nevada Deceptive Practices Act and California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 and Lanham Act unfair competition.  Presently both parties have brought motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgement, which are pending before the Court.
 
​Existing Rimini customers or Oracle customers thinking of moving to Rimini will find some of the allegations of the Third Amended Complaint quite interesting.  For example, Rimini contends that:

​In addition to using its audit powers to allegedly harass Rimini customers,  Rimini also claims that Oracle seeks to create FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in Oracle customers and to disrupt those customer relationships with Rimini.  According to the Third Amended Complaint:

​Rimini claims that Oracle’s intentional interference with Rimini’s customers has actually disrupted those relationships, even causing some clients to terminate their maintenance & support agreements or at least decide not to expand their relationships with Rimini:

​Oracle customers considering moving their maintenance & support to Rimini should consider strategies for mitigating the risk of support disruptions when negotiating any new maintenance & support agreement.  If Rimini’s pleading is correct about Oracle’s tactics and we assume that it is, Oracle customers should also be prepared to receive nasty grams or other communications from Oracle, which seek to create fear, uncertainty and doubt in the heart of the Oracle customer.
 
Oracle customers should also be aware that Oracle sent Rimini a cease & desist letter on January 17, 2017 providing Rimini with 60 days-notice that Rimini must cease accessing its support site and threatening Rimini with violation of various state and federal computer protection statutes if it refused to discontinue accessing the site.  In the Third Amended Complaint, Rimini has included a claim for declaratory relief asking the Nevada district court to declare the cease & desist letter a nullity and to affirm that Rimini has the right to access the Oracle maintenance and support site on behalf of its customers.  Oracle has moved for summary judgment on this claim arguing, inter alia, that Oracle has the right to terminate Rimini’s ability to access the site, because Oracle’s terms of use provide that access can be terminated at any time and Rimini agreed to those terms when it accessed the site.  Oracle contends that any access of its support site by Rimini after March 17, 2017 is unlawful.  According to Oracle:

​For its part, Rimini disagrees with Oracle’s assertions, claiming that its customers have authorized Rimini to access the site and no Oracle authorization is needed.  According to a recent Rimini filing:

If Oracle wins this argument, Oracle customers who use Rimini for support may face significant risk and could be forced to return to Oracle for support.  That of course could be a nightmare scenario as clients returning to Oracle may encounter steep price increases for annual maintenance & support under Oracle’s existing policies.

​Pamela K. Fulmer
 
Tactical Law will continue to monitor the litigation.  Please check back for periodic updates.