Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1145

MOTION in Limine filed by Oracle International Corporation. 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 Granting Plaintiff's Motions In Limine)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

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: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.393.2286
[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 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 MOTIONS IN LIMINE

SAP AG, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26
27
28
NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORACLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

Before the Court is Oracle International Corporation’s (“Oracle”) Motions In

2

Limine. After considering the pleadings, memoranda, and supporting papers submitted by the

3

Parties, and having heard the arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Oracle’s

4

Motions are GRANTED. At the new trial:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

1. Defendants are precluded from introducing or eliciting any testimony or
argument related to the causation opinion of their damages expert, Stephen Clarke.
2. Defendants are precluded from introducing or eliciting any testimony or
argument related to Clarke’s “market study” of the third-party support market.
3. Defendants are precluded from admitting evidence that is otherwise
inadmissible through an expert unless in accordance with Federal Rule of Evidence 703.
4. Defendants are precluded from relying on the five late produced customer
declarations in support of any damages analysis.
5. Defendants are precluded from introducing or eliciting any testimony,

14

argument, evidence, or documents that support the deduction of costs from defendants’

15

infringers’ revenues.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

DATED: _______________, 2012
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
United States District Court Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ORACLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)