Oracle Corporation (NYSE:ORCL) failed to restore the $1.3 billion in damages awarded by a jury in connection with its copyright infringement case against SAP SE (ADR) (NYSE:SAP) after a federal court of appeals rejected its motion, according to report from Reuters.

Oracle lost bid to restore $1.3B SAP verdict

Oracle has option to accept lower amount or face new trial

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Oracle Corporation (NYSE:ORCL) has two options—to accept a lower amount or face a new trial.

In its ruling, the court of appeals explained that the jurors in the case used “undue amount of speculation” when they awarded a $1.3 billion in damages to Oracle Corporation (NYSE:ORCL) in 2010. At the time, SAP SE (ADR) (NYSE:SAP) argued that it should only pay $40 million in damages to cover the lost profits of Oracle.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton in Oakland, California rejected the $1.3 billion jury award and ruled that Oracle Corporation (NYSE:ORCL) deserved $272 million in actual damages.

“The award of hypothetical license damages totaling $1.3-billion was contrary to the weight of the evidence and was grossly excessive,” according to Judge Hamilton in 2011.

District judge made a mistake

The Court of Appeals also emphasized that Judge Hamilton made a mistake when she concluded that Oracle Corporation (NYSE:ORCL) deserve only $272 million of damages, which the company rejected. According to the court of appeals, Judge Hamilton made an error in concluding the Oracle only lost $36 million of profit since the right amount should have been $120.7 million.

Judge William Fletcher of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel ordered Judge Hamilton to offer $356.7 million of damages to Oracle Corporation (NYSE:ORCL) or a second trial.

In 2007, Oracle Corporation (NYSE:ORCL) filed a copyright infringement case against TomorrowNow, a subsidiary of SAP SE (ADR) (NYSE:SAP) for illegally downloading software and millions of support materials from Oracle’s websites.  Prior to the trial, SAP stated that it would not challenge “contributory infringement” in the case.