And, even if they lose on fair use, they can appeal the final ruling, including on the question here. There were arguments (including from the Solicitor General) that the Supreme Court should not take this case because the fair use question had not yet been addressed, so its perhaps premature to read into it whether the Supreme Court would take this question up, or how it would rule if it did, were the case otherwise finalized in the lower courts.
"U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli responded with a brief that urged the court to sidestep the case, particularly because the fair-use issue hadn’t been resolved in the lower court. Mr. Verrilli also said one of Google’s main arguments against copyrights on the Java packages was without merit."
Times like this when I miss groklaw.
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-denies-google-appe...
But the issue here is actually re-implementing the API, not calling it. The court could rule that an API could be copyrighted (and therefore freely called, but not freely re-implemented). The result would be that an API becomes a one-way interface. You couldn't have multiple competing implementations, you could only have one. That's still a big change for the software landscape...