Amount sought is in addition to the previously announced favorable appeal decision that should result in a refund of up to nearly $50 million from Oracle
LAS VEGAS, January 24, 2018 – Rimini Street, Inc. (Nasdaq: RMNI), a global provider of enterprise software products and services, and the leading third-party support provider for Oracle and SAP software products, today provides the following statement related to a petition recently filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Oracle vs. Rimini Street:
“On January 8, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed certain awards made in Oracle’s favor during and after our 2015 trial, and vacated others, including an injunction that had already been stayed by the appellate court. The Court of Appeals also overturned all orders and judgments against Rimini Street’s CEO, Seth A. Ravin. Further, while affirming the jury’s finding of ‘innocent’ copyright infringement for processes that Rimini Street claims are no longer in use since at least July 2014, the Court of Appeals stated that Rimini Street ‘provided third-party support for Oracle’s enterprise software, in lawful competition with Oracle’s direct maintenance services.’ The favorable appeal decision should result in a refund of up to nearly $50 million from Oracle.
On January 22, 2018, Rimini Street filed a petition for a rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals to recover up to an additional $32 million from Oracle.
The Company is asking the Court of Appeals to rehear the calculation of $22 million in prejudgment interest. The trial court set the interest rate using a date that precedes the filing of the litigation, which resulted in an additional $20 million cost paid by Rimini Street.
The Company is also asking the Court of Appeals to rehear the award of $12 million in non-taxable costs – a Ninth Circuit decision that is in direct conflict with decisions in other federal circuit courts and decisions of the United States Supreme Court. As a result of this ruling, Rimini Street believes it paid $12 million it would not have had to pay in other court jurisdictions.”