I don't think either side disputes that Google implemented a portion of the Java API, which they copied from Apache Harmony. But they certainly seem to disagree on what qualifies as a meaningful definition of SSO, with Oracle arguing that both the entirety of Java and individual packages qualify as SSO.
It's not the jury's job to decide whether that qualifies as SSO, that's the judge's job. It's the jury's job to decide what people actually did, whether they did what they say they did, etc.
One of the jury's jobs is to decide whether Google infringed upon Oracle's protected property. It would seem like they'd require a clear definition of SSO to be able to do that.
