Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1055

RESPONSE (re 1046 MOTION for New Trial CONDITIONAL Motion for New Trial ) Defendants' Opposition to Oracle's Conditional Motion for New Trial filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Denying Plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for New Trial)(McDonell, Jason) (Filed on 4/8/2011)

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

Robert A. Mittelstaedt (SBN 060359) Jason McDonell (SBN 115084) Elaine Wallace (SBN 197882) JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784) Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776) JONES DAY 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and TOMORROWNOW, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

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

Having considered Plaintiffs' Conditional Motion for New Trial, the memoranda and declaration in support thereof and exhibits attached thereto, the Defendants' Opposition thereto and the argument of counsel: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. By: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

DATED: ________________________

SFI-667673v1

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' CONDITIONAL MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)