The Google logo printed on a carpet during the inauguration of the new Google cultural institute in Paris, France in 2013. (Jacques Brinon/AP)

Google won a jury verdict that ends Oracle’s claim to a $9 billion slice of the search giant’s Android phone business.

Oracle contended that Google needed a license to use its Java programming language to develop Android, the operating system in 80 percent of the world’s mobile devices. Jurors in a federal court in San Francisco rejected that argument Thursday and concluded that Google made fair use of the code under copyright law.

A decision against Google had the potential to give significantly more weight to software copyrights and to spur litigation to protect those added rights. Oracle — which started the trial at an advantage with the judge explaining that it had already been established that Google had infringed Oracle’s copyrights — plans to appeal, although legal experts said overturning a jury verdict will be difficult.

Google relied on witnesses including former chief executive Eric Schmidt, who is now chairman of parent company Alphabet, to convince jurors that it used Java to innovate, rather than merely copy code. Before joining Google, Schmidt worked at Sun Microsystems developing and marketing Java. Oracle acquired Sun in 2010, and Schmidt was involved in Google’s failed licensing negotiations, which spurred the ­copyright-infringement lawsuit filed that year by the database maker.

Schmidt told jurors that, based on his “many years of experience” with Java, he believed Google was permitted to use the APIs — the shortcuts that allow developers to write programs to work across software platforms — without a negotiated license, as long as the company relied on its own code. Sun promoted them as “free and open” and not sold or licensed separately from Java, he said.

Central to Oracle’s bid for what would have been one of the largest jury verdicts in U.S. history was its claim that Google has reaped $21 billion in profit from more than 3 billion activations of ­Android. Oracle sought damages of $8.8 billion, plus $475 million in what it claims was lost licensing revenue.

“Oracle brought this lawsuit to put a stop to Google’s illegal behavior,” Dorian Daley, Oracle general counsel, said in a statement. “We believe there are numerous grounds for appeal.”

Google relied on a “free-market” argument, said Tyler Ochoa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law who has followed the case since it was filed in 2010.

Google claimed that it was within its rights to use the organization and labeling of the Java code to develop Android because programmers were already familiar with them, Ochoa said. Google’s message was that “Oracle shouldn’t ‘own’ programmers simply because they had taken the time to learn Java,” Ochoa said.

Ochoa was one of 41 academics who agreed with Google that the code at issue didn’t merit copyright protection and urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The high court last year declined to take it.

Oracle won a 2012 verdict that Google infringed its copyrights, but that jury couldn’t agree whether it was justified under the fair use legal doctrine. That set the stage for the second trial, featuring many of the witnesses from four years ago as well as the same judge, William Alsup.

Both sides leaned on powerful Silicon Valley personalities to put a shine on technology-laden arguments.

Safra Catz, Oracle co-chief executive, invoked the Ten Commandments to characterize Google as acting above the law. Catz told jurors that, at a bat mitzvah in 2012, Google’s general counsel, Kent Walker, told her, “You know, Safra, Google is this really special company, and the old rules don’t apply to us.”

“I immediately said, ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ ” Catz testified. “It’s an oldie but goodie.”

Witnesses for Google said the company didn’t need a license for the Java’s application programming interfaces, or APIs, to build Android.

In cross-examinations of those witnesses, Oracle’s attorneys hit upon a disconnect between their testimony and selected emails while Android was being created. The messages showed Google executives and engineers were concerned that they needed, and didn’t get, a license for Java.

Google co-founder Larry Page was confronted with a 2005 internal email posing the question of whether to drop the use of Java for Android or press ahead, “perhaps making enemies along the way.”

Page responded, “Obviously we didn’t do the first one.”

Michael Risch, a law professor at Villanova University School of Law in Pennsylvania who’s been following the case, said it will be difficult for Oracle to overturn the jury verdict because an appeals court will have to conclude the instructions to jurors on the legal issues in the case were flawed.

Before the verdict, Risch said the outcome was a “toss-up” and that it may not have been well-suited for a jury to decide.

“There should be a clear set of guidelines that allow companies to know when they may reuse functional aspects of another company’s copyrighted work, and submitting a fair use question to a jury fails in all respects,” Risch said.

Bloomberg News