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:
(415) 626-3939
Facsimile:
(415) 875-5700
ramittelstaedt@jonesday.com
jmcdonell@jonesday.com
ewallace@jonesday.com
Tharan Gregory Lanier (SBN 138784)
Jane L. Froyd (SBN 220776)
JONES DAY
1755 Embarcadero Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Telephone:
(650) 739-3939
Facsimile:
(650) 739-3900
tglanier@jonesday.com
jfroyd@jonesday.com
Scott W. Cowan (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Joshua L. Fuchs (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
JONES DAY
717 Texas, Suite 3300
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone:
(832) 239-3939
Facsimile:
(832) 239-3600
swcowan@jonesday.com
jlfuchs@jonesday.com
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)
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?