verbatim copying?

Google says they didn't copy at all, but explains why some stuff might look somewhat similar for 0.1% of the works in question. But explicitly denies doing any verbatim copying. The whole point of the case seems to be how in such a situation you still get to the fact or admission that they did create a verbatim copy.

The appeal court could have given a bit more explanation. Because I cannot follow their reasoning. It might indeed be that they took the jury conclusion as basis for their claim that there was a verbatim copy made. But that would then be despite Google denying it did any copying.

Most of the appeals court ruling is about whether someone can claim copyright on something or not. Then they overrule the lower court that some specific structure of functional elements cannot by copyrighted. But then you still get to the question of whether Oracle actually held the copyright on that structure and whether Google actually made a copy of that copyrighted work. The appeals court then just assumes both these last two facts. But I might be missing where they explain their reasoning for assuming those last two facts in the first case. It wasn't because "Google has actually conceded to this verbatim copying in court".