Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1107

RESPONSE to re 1095 Order, Plaintiffs' Rejection of Remittitur and Request for Retrial by Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 2/6/2012)

1

24

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]
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
ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,
No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
ORACLE’S REJECTION OF REMITTITUR
Plaintiffs,
AND REQUEST FOR RETRIAL
v.

25

SAP AG, et al.,

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

26

Defendants.

27
28
Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

ORACLE’S REJECTION OF REMITTITUR AND REQUEST FOR RETRIAL

1
2
3

Plaintiffs Oracle USA Inc., Oracle International Corporation, and Siebel Systems,
Inc. (“Oracle”) respectfully reject the remittitur issued by the Court, and elect a new trial.
Oracle has no choice but to elect a new trial, as accepting the remittitur would

4

force Oracle to risk waiving its right to appeal the Court’s decision on the motions for judgment

5

as a matter of law and for a new trial. Oracle’s objective is to obtain clarification of the law and,

6

if it is right about what the law is and what the evidence supports in this case, to vindicate the

7

verdict of the jury and Oracle’s intellectual property rights as a copyright owner. Accepting the

8

remittitur would be contrary to this objective.

9
10
11
12

DATED: February 6, 2012

Bingham McCutchen LLP
By:

/s/ Geoffrey M. Howard
Geoffrey M. Howard
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

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

ORACLE’S REJECTION OF REMITTITUR AND REQUEST FOR RETRIAL