Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1085

MOTION 1292(b) Certification For Interlocutory Review re 1081 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for New Trial, filed by Oracle International Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 1/11/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 9/26/2011. Replies due by 10/3/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

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

No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
ORACLE’S MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
FOR INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)

Defendants.

28

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORACLE’S MOTION FOR 1292(b) CERTIFICATION OF ORDER, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH

1

Before the Court is the Motion for Certification for Interlocutory Review Pursuant

2

to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Oracle International Corporation. After

3

considering the pleadings, memoranda, and supporting papers submitted by the Parties, and

4

having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Oracle’s Motion is

5

GRANTED.

6

The Court amends its Order Granting Defendants’ Motion for JMOL, and Motion

7

for New Trial; Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial; Order Partially Vacating

8

Judgment (the “Post-Trial Order”) to certify the Post-Trial Order for interlocutory review,

9

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and Fed. R. App. Proc. 5(a)(3). The Post-Trial Order involves the

10

following controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of

11

opinion and an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the

12

litigation:

13

Whether copyright damages based upon the amount a willing buyer would

14

reasonably have had to pay a willing seller under a hypothetical license requires the copyright

15

owner to provide evidence of (a) actual licenses it entered into or would have entered into for the

16

infringed works and/or (b) actual “ benchmark” licenses entered into by any party for

17

comparable use of the infringed or comparable works.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

DATED: _______________, 2011
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
United States District Court Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORACLE’S MOTION FOR 1292(b) CERTIFICATION OF ORDER, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH
A/74512422.1