Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1143

Declaration of Tharan Gregory Lanier in Support of 1142 MOTION in Limine Defendants' Motions in Limine filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20)(Related document(s) 1142 ) (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

EXHIBIT 2

PAUL K. MEYER
May 13, 2010
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 332
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation,
ORACLE USA, INC., a
Colorado corporation, and
ORACLE INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, a California
corporation,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
) No. 07-CV-1658 (PJH)
)
SAP AG, a German
)
corporation, SAP AMERICA,
)
INC., a Delaware
)
corporation, TOMORROWNOW,
)
INC., a Texas corporation,
)
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
PAUL K. MEYER
_________________________________
VOLUME 2; PAGES 332 - 647
THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2010

HIGHLY
REPORTED BY:

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
HOLLY THUMAN, CSR No. 6834, RMR, CRR
(1-427374)

Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]

3ae7549b-c0d5-4963-b773-f83ce7edfbe0

PAUL K. MEYER
May 13, 2010
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 344
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT

09:14:56

4

09:14:58

5

09:15:04

6

09:15:08

7

09:15:16

8

09:15:18

9

09:15:20

10

believe is called the infringer's profits.

09:15:25

11

believe it's beyond sort of my expertise and

09:15:28

12

training as to how they are categorized by the

09:15:31

13

court, but I've been asked to calculate the

09:15:33

14

infringer's profit, is what I've done.

09:15:36

15

know how that's referred to by the court, but I

09:15:38

16

would defer to the lawyers on that.

09:15:40

17

09:15:42

18

09:15:47

19

09:15:50

20

Mr. Clarke's adjustments that he made to the

09:15:54

21

revenue figures that I put forward.

09:15:56

22

09:16:00

23

09:16:00

24

A.

Approximately.

09:16:01

25

Q.

Okay.

Q.

I want to go back to the discussion of the

"but for" concept that we discussed yesterday.
You've developed a number which you
contend are disgorgement damages.
A.

Correct?

Well, I'm not a lawyer, but from my

perspective, I've been asked to quantify what I

Q.

And I

And I don't

So the infringer's profits that you're

referring to is the 288-million-dollar number?
A.

Q.

It would be the adjustments I've made to

The 288 million -- and it's 288 million

dollars?

So the 288 million dollars of

Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]

3ae7549b-c0d5-4963-b773-f83ce7edfbe0

PAUL K. MEYER
May 13, 2010
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY
Page 345
09:16:03

1

infringer's profits that you calculated, is it your

09:16:06

2

position that but for the activities of

09:16:10

3

TomorrowNow, SAP would not have received any of

09:16:14

4

those profits?

09:16:20

5

09:16:25

6

dollars is a calculation of benefits that SAP has

09:16:32

7

received for the alleged infringement.

09:16:38

8

perspective, I have looked at those customers and

09:16:40

9

determined that the 288 million is a reasonable

09:16:43

10

09:16:46

11

09:16:48

12

09:16:51

13

Is it your position that but for the

09:16:53

14

activities of TomorrowNow, SAP would not have

09:16:57

15

received any of the profits included in your 288

09:17:02

16

million dollar calculation of infringer's profits?

09:17:05

17

09:17:08

18

09:17:15

19

Q.

But for the activities of TomorrowNow.

09:17:18

20

A.

Okay.

09:17:20

21

it, their execution and -- planning and execution

09:17:23

22

on the Safe Passage program.

09:17:27

23

the 288 million dollars is the infringer's profits

09:17:30

24

from the infringement.
TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT

A.

It's my position that the 288 million

And from my

calculation of that value.
Q.

I'm going to try the question again,

Mr. Meyer.

A.

Please listen carefully:

And how are you defining your "but for" in

this question?

But for what?

And that includes, as I understand

It's my opinion that

Merrill Legal Solutions
[phone]

3ae7549b-c0d5-4963-b773-f83ce7edfbe0

TEXT REMOVED - NOT RELEVANT