Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1059

RESPONSE (re 1051 MOTION to Stay Defendants' Motion For Stay of Execution of Judgment Through Appeal and Approval of Proposed Security Pursuant to FRCP 62 ) filed byOracle International Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Alinder, Zachary) (Filed on 4/13/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

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: 415.393.2286
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177)
FRED NORTON (SBN 224725)
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049)
JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227)
500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7
Redwood City, CA 94070
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.506.7144
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

22
23
24

ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26

SAP AG, et al.,

27

Defendants.

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAP’S
MOTION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT
THROUGH APPEAL AND APPROVAL
OF SECURITY PURSUANT TO FRCP 62
AND ORDERING BOND TO STAY
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 62

28
No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAP’S MOTION FOR STAY AND APPROVAL OF SECURITY

1

Before the Court is the Motion for Stay of Judgment Through Appeal and Approval of

2

Security Pursuant to FRCP 62 (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc.

3

and TomorrowNow, Inc. (collectively, “SAP”) and opposed by Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.,

4

Oracle International Corporation and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, “Oracle,” and together

5

with SAP, the “Parties”). After considering the pleadings, memoranda, and supporting papers

6

submitted by the Parties, and having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY

7

ORDERED that SAP’s Motion is DENIED.

8
9

Instead, as contemplated under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 62, if SAP desires to stay execution of
the judgment through appeal, SAP shall file, within 14 days, a certification that (1) it has

10

obtained a supersedeas bond to secure the judgment in the agreed initial amount of

11

$1,325,033,547.00, (2) the bonding company has agreed to provide a quarterly report to the

12

Parties for the duration that the bond is in place to secure the judgment, and, (3) the bonding

13

company and SAP will increase the bond amount as needed to cover post-judgment interest

14

accrued in the future for the duration that the bond is in place to secure the judgment. If SAP has

15

not secured this bond and filed the certification within 14 days, Oracle shall be entitled to

16

execute on the judgment immediately.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22
23

Dated: _____________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAP’S MOTION FOR STAY AND APPROVAL OF SECURITY