Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1120

MOTION for Clarification filed by Oracle International Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 5/23/2012 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 5/1/2012. Replies due by 5/8/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Oracle's Motion for Clarification)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 4/17/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: 415.393.2000 Facsimile: 415.393.2286 donn.pickett@bingham.com geoff.howard@bingham.com bree.hann@bingham.com BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 dboies@bsfllp.com STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) FRED NORTON (SBN 224725) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 sholtzman@bsfllp.com fnorton@bsfllp.com DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: 650.506.4846 Facsimile: 650.506.7144 dorian.daley@oracle.com jennifer.gloss@oracle.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Oracle International Corp. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION 20 21 22 ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, 23 v. 24 No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORACLE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION SAP AG, et al., 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORACLE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) 1 Before the Court is the Motion for Clarification (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff 2 Oracle International Corporation (“Oracle”). After considering the pleadings, memoranda, and 3 supporting papers submitted by the Parties, and having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS 4 HEREBY ORDERED that Oracle’s Motion is GRANTED. 5 The Court clarifies that Oracle may present evidence and argument at the new 6 trial in support of a hypothetical license measure of damages, including evidence not previously 7 offered, objectively showing the fair market value of the infringed copyrighted material. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 DATED: _______________, 2012 Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Court Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORACLE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?