The jury award against SAP was based on a so-called "hypothetical license," or the amount SAP would have paid if it had licensed the stolen software from Oracle legally. Much of Wednesday's argument was about whether that was the correct methodology to apply.

Lanier, for SAP, said a hypothetical license only applies when the two parties would willingly have entered negotiations. In this case, he said, Oracle's own executives testified that they would never have considered licensing the software to SAP.

SAP says the damages should instead be based on the profits Oracle lost from theft, and the profits gained by SAP.

Howard rejected that argument. No courts have ruled that a hypothetical license depends on the willingness of the two sides to negotiate, he said.

SAP also says the damages were arrived at through "speculation." It criticized Oracle's closing arguments, from David Boies, who told the jury the damages should fall somewhere between $1.6 billion and $3 billion.