Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1094

STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Deadline To Accept Or Reject Remittitur by Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 10/31/2011)

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

BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP
DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257)
GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468)
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.

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.,
No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Plaintiffs,
REGARDING DEADLINE TO ACCEPT OR
v.
REJECT REMITTITUR
Date: N/A
SAP AG, et al.,
Time: N/A
Place: 3rd Floor, Courtroom 3
Defendants.
Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEADLINE RE REMITTITUR

1

Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation and Siebel Systems,

2

Inc. (“Oracle”) and Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc.

3

(“Defendants” and together with Oracle the “Parties”) submit this Stipulation and [Proposed]

4

Order regarding the deadline for Oracle to accept or reject the remittitur.

5

WHEREAS, on September 1, 2011, this Court granted “a new trial as to actual

6

damages, conditioned on Oracle’s rejection of a remittitur to $272 million” and ordered that

7

“Oracle shall submit a statement accepting or rejecting the remittitur no later than September 30,

8

2011 (or the parties shall submit a stipulated request for additional time, if necessary).” ECF No.

9

1081 at 20:13-19;

10

WHEREAS, on September 16, 2011, this Court extended the deadline to accept or

11

reject the remittitur “until after this court has fully considered Oracle’s request for an order

12

certifying a request for interlocutory review, and has determined what if any question(s) may be

13

certified; and for an additional 30 days beyond the date the Ninth Circuit either approves or

14

denies any such application.” ECF No. 1088 at 2:2-5;

15

WHEREAS, if the Court denies Oracle’s request for certification, the Ninth

16

Circuit will not approve or deny such application and the 30-day deadline will not run; and

17
18
19

WHEREAS the Parties desire to ensure that Oracle’s deadline to accept or reject
the remittitur will not expire while an interlocutory appeal is pending.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND REQUEST

20

THE COURT TO ORDER that Oracle shall submit a statement accepting or rejecting the

21

remittitur no later than:

22
23
24
25
26

(1) 30 days after issuance of an order by this Court denying Oracle’s pending
motion for certification (ECF No. 1089);
(2) if this Court grants Oracle’s pending motion for certification, 30 days after
issuance of an order by the Ninth Circuit denying application for leave to appeal;
(3) if this Court grants Oracle’s pending motion for certification, the Ninth Circuit

27

grants leave to appeal, and the Ninth Circuit affirms the Court’s Order Granting Defendants’

28

Motion for JMOL, and Motion for New Trial; Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for New Trial;
1

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEADLINE RE REMITTITUR

1

Order Partially Vacating Judgment (ECF No. 1081), 30 days after issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s

2

mandate; provided that the Parties hereby stipulate that the Ninth Circuit’s issuance of its

3

mandate shall be stayed pending any petition for certiorari and, if the Supreme Court grants

4

certiorari, until the Supreme Court’s final disposition.

5
6

DATED: October 31, 2011

7

BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP
By:

/s/ Geoffrey M. Howard
Geoffrey M. Howard

8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al.

9
10
11

In accordance with General Order No. 45, Rule X, the above signatory attests that
concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below.

12
13

DATED: October 31, 2011

JONES DAY
By:

14

/s/ Tharan Gregory Lanier
Tharan Gregory Lanier

15
Counsel for Defendants
SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and
TOMORROWNOW, INC.

16
17
18

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22
23

DATED: ______________, 2011

Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
United States District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE DEADLINE RE REMITTITUR