Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1142

MOTION in Limine Defendants' Motions in Limine filed by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. Motion Hearing set for 5/24/2012 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland before Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton. Responses due by 5/10/2012. Replies due by 5/17/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

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

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.

19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

OAKLAND DIVISION

22
23

ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,

24

Plaintiffs,

25

v.

26

SAP AG, et al.,

27

Defendants.

Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN
LIMINE
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

May 24, 2012
2:30 p.m.
3rd Floor, Courtroom 3
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

1

Having considered the papers filed in connection with Defendants’ Motions in Limine:

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

3
4
5

1.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 to exclude evidence and argument regarding

new lost profits and infringer’s profits claims is:

6
7

GRANTED: Oracle shall not argue to the jury or attempt to present any evidence related

8

to new, untimely-disclosed lost profits or infringer’s profits claims, which evidence or argument

9

attempts to expand the scope of Oracle’s damages claims beyond the previously disclosed

10

maximum of $408.7 million, including, but not limited to, the new, untimely April 20, 2012

11

report of Oracle’s expert, Paul K. Meyer. Oracle also shall not present evidence or argument that

12

Defendants, as alleged willful infringers, may not deduct expenses as part of an infringer’s profits

13

analysis. Finally, Oracle may not present evidence or argument that the “List of 86” customers

14

relied upon by the parties’ experts to calculate infringer’s profits is the work product of

15

Defendants’ counsel, or is incorrect or incomplete.

16

or,

17

DENIED.

18
19
20

2.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude evidence previously offered solely

to support Oracle’s hypothetical license theory or any other excluded theory of damages is:

21
22

GRANTED: Oracle shall not argue to the jury or attempt to present any evidence related

23

to a hypothetical license measure of damages, or any other theory of damages previously

24

excluded.

25

or,

26

DENIED.

27
28
-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

1
2

3.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence and argument regarding

TomorrowNow’s criminal conviction is:

3
4

GRANTED: Oracle shall not make any references to, ask any questions about, make any

5

statements about, or proffer any evidence regarding TomorrowNow’s criminal conviction,

6

including the conviction itself, the Information, Plea Agreement, Judgment, and related hearing

7

transcripts.

8

or,

9

DENIED.

10
11
12

4.

Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 4 to prohibit Oracle from referring to

Defendants’ actions as “theft,” “stealing,” or any variation thereof is:

13
14

GRANTED: Oracle shall not make any remarks or proffer evidence or elicit testimony

15

referring to Defendants’ actions as “theft” or “stealing” or any variation thereof, or make similar

16

insinuations.

17

or,

18

DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

DATED: ______________________

By:
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
United States District Court Judge

23
24
25

SVI-107501v1

26
27
28
-2-

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)