Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG
US copyright infringement lawsuit (decided 2011)
Oracle Corp v. SAP AG, No. 4:07-cv-01658, was a United States District Court for the Northern District of California case in which Oracle sued SAP, alleging that SAP had engaged in copyright infringement by downloading thousands of copyrighted documents and programs from Oracle's Customer Connection website. SAP admitted that its subsidiary TomorrowNow had infringed Oracle's copyrights and a jury awarded Oracle record-high damages in the amount of $1.3 billion. Judge Phyllis Hamilton later vacated the jury's verdict, which was based on the calculation of a hypothetical license, and granted SAP's motion for a new trial dependent on Oracle rejecting a remittitur of $272 million. In November 2014, an appeals court ruled for $356.7 million in damages, a decision which was accepted by both parties.
Background
TomorrowNow was a company based in Bryan, Texas, which specialized in offering third-party technical service and support for enterprise software systems, including systems from PeopleSoft and JD Edwards. TomorrowNow was acquired by SAP AG in 2005 and became a wholly owned subsidiary of SAP.
PeopleSoft acquired JD Edwards in 2003 and then Oracle Corporation acquired PeopleSoft in 2005.
On March 22, 2007, Oracle filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California accusing SAP and TomorrowNow of corporate theft on a "grand scale". According to Oracle, TomorrowNow had downloaded thousands of documents and programs from Oracle's Customer Connection technical support website.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG” is uS copyright infringement lawsuit (decided 2011). The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Oracle, Corp and copyright, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “uS copyright infringement lawsuit (decided 2011)” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7099258. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2014, 2005, 2003 and 2007.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG primary sources, Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG archive and Oracle research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Oracle Corp. v. SAP AG” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.