Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1156

RESPONSE (re 1145 MOTION in Limine ) Defendants' Oppositions to Oracle's Motions in Limine filed bySAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/10/2012)

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

SAP AG, et al.,

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
ORACLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE

v.

26

Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

Defendants.

27

Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

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

28
SVI-108144v1

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

1

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

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

3
4

1.

5

DENIED.

Oracle’s Motion No. 1 (“Clarke’s Lack of Expertise in Customer Behavior”) is:

6
7
8

2.

Oracle’s Motion No. 2 (“Clarke’s Third Party Market ‘Study’ Is Merely a

Summary of Inadmissible Evidence and Is Beyond Clarke’s Expertise”) is: DENIED.

9
10
11

3.

Oracle’s Motion No. 3 (“The Court Should Not Allow SAP to Present Hearsay

through Experts (Either Clarke or Meyer)”) is: DENIED.

12
13
14

4.

Oracle’s Motion No. 4 (“To Exclude Reliance on Late-Produced Customer

Declarations”) is: DENIED.

15
16
17

5.

Oracle’s Motion No. 5 (“To Exclude Testimony About Infringers’ Profits That

Includes Improper Expense Deductions”) is: DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

DATED: ______________________

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

23
24
25
26
27
28
SVI-108144v1

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S
MOTIONS IN LIMINE
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)