Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1011

RESPONSE to 1010 Statement Regarding Plaintiffs' Proposed Form of Judgment by Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc. (Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 12/13/2010) Modified on 12/14/2010 (kc, COURT STAFF).

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] m [e-mail] ho [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] m BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armo nk, NY 10504 Telephone: [phone] Fascimile: [phone] dbo [e-mail] m STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) FRED NORTON (SBN 224725) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] sho [e-mail] [e-mail] m DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) v. Plaint iffs, ORACLE'S RESPONSE TO SAP'S STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) ORACLE'S RESPONSE TO SAP'S STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaint iffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Oracle" or "Plaintiffs") respectfully submit this response to Defendants' filing styled as "Defendants' Statement Regarding Plaintiffs' Proposed Form of Judgment" (DKT 1010). First, Defendants assert that Oracle's proposed form of judgment would not be a final judgment because it is silent as to whether Oracle seeks a permanent injunction against SAP. Oracle does not seek a permanent injunction against SAP, except to the extent identified in the proposed of judgment (relating to the disposition of the infringed intellectual property) submitted on December 10, 2010; the form of judgment that Oracle submitted will be final if the Court directs the Clerk to enter it. Second, Defendants contend that Oracle's proposed judgment should "be treated like a motion" to which Defendants propose to respond on December 29, 2010, with a reply from Oracle on January 5, and a hearing to be set sometime thereafter. Oracle objects to Defendants' proposal. There is no basis for the requested delay, and Defendants cite no authority at all in support of that request. Pursuant to Rule 58, the judgment is to be entered "promptly." Since the jury returned its verdict on November 23, the parties have met and conferred extensively (and kept the Court apprised of their discussions) on the form of judgment, including an exchange of drafts of the judgment, disclosure of the amount of interest that Oracle seeks and the basis for the applicable interest rate, and an exchange and discussion of legal authorities concerning all of the issues Defendants say they dispute. If Defendants have an objection to Oracle's proposed form of the judgment, they should make that object ion now, rather than delay entry of judgment by a full month or more. Contrary to Defendants' suggestion in their Statement, Oracle has fully shared with Defendants the reasoning behind and justification for Oracle's request for and calculation of prejudgment interest over the course of the last several weeks. Defendants have already had ample opportunity to determine their position. Accordingly, Oracle requests that Defendants be required to file any objections to the proposed form of judgment and any alternative proposed form of judgment by Thursday, December 16; and that Oracle be required to provide any objections to Defendants' proposal (if 2 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
ORACLE'S RESPONSE TO SAP'S STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

any) by Monday, December 20. DATED: December 13, 2010 BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Steven C. Holtzman Steven C. Holtzman Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Siebel Systems, Inc.

3

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

ORACLE'S RESPONSE TO SAP'S STATEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' PROPOSED FORM OF JUDGMENT