Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1154

RESPONSE (re 1142 MOTION in Limine Defendants' Motions in Limine ) filed byOracle International Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 5/10/2012)

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 DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

SAP AG, et al.,

25

Defendants.

26
27
28
NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE

1

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motions in Limine. Having reviewed the

2

parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments, evidence and relevant legal authority,

3

the Court hereby rules on Defendants’ motions as follows:

4

I.

5

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 1: INFRINGERS’
PROFITS EVIDENCE
Defendants’ motion to preclude Oracle from presenting evidence of damages beyond

6
7

$408.7 million is DENIED. In addition, as willful infringers, Defendants are precluded from

8

deducting costs from their infringers’ revenues as a matter of law.

9
10

Defendants’ motion to exclude Oracle’s expert’s updated damages opinion to account for
the passage of time is DENIED.

11

Finally, Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence or argument that Defendants’ “List of

12
13
14

86” is incomplete is DENIED.
II.

15
16
17

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 2: EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF ORACLE’S HYPOTHETICAL LICENSE THEORY
Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence previously offered solely to support Oracle’s

hypothetical license theory is DENIED.

18

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 3:
TOMORROWNOW’S CRIMINAL CONVICTION

19

Defendants’ motion to exclude evidence and argument regarding TomorrowNow’s

20

III.

criminal conviction is DENIED.

21
22

IV.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 4: EVIDENCE OF
“THEFT” OR “STEALING”

23

Defendants’ motion to exclude any remarks, evidence, or testimony referring to

24
25

Defendants’ actions as “theft” or “stealing” or any variation thereof is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

DATED: _______________, 2012
Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
United States District Court Judge
1
NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN LIMINE