[richardfontana]

I believe the CAFC decision is not binding precedent for any court. If P sues D in the 9th circuit over copyright, even if there are patent claims as well (such that an appeal on a copyright issue would necessarily go to the CAFC), the CAFC decision in Oracle v. Google is not binding precedent. Of course that does not mean that the district court would be likely to ignore the CAFC decision in Oracle v. Google, but in principle it ought to be no more than persuasive, like any pertinent decision in a sibling circuit.

On the question in your last paragraph, where P sues D over copyright and patents in the 9th circuit, and there are only appeals of copyright issues, the appeal goes to the CAFC by statute.

[tzs]

On that last part, so CAFC gets the case if it included patent claims, even if neither party is appealing any of the patent issues?

That raises the possibility of copyright plaintiffs tossing in a patent claim that they have no intention of trying to actually win on, just to make sure that they will get CAFC's view of copyright instead of the 9th Circuit's view.

[richardfontana]

Yes, the CAFC would get the case.

The CAFC itself would be bound to apply 9th Circuit precedent, as it purported to do here. Again in principle, a prior copyright decision by the CAFC applying 9th Circuit law would not be binding precedent on a CAFC panel hearing some later copyright case arising out of the 9th Circuit.