Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1176

Defendants' Response to 1173 Oracle's Statement Regarding Trial Schedule by SAP AG, SAP America Inc, Tomorrownow Inc. (Froyd, Jane) (Filed on 5/31/2012) Modified on 6/1/2012 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

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

ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,

23

Plaintiffs,

24

v.

25

Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO
ORACLE’S STATEMENT
REGARDING TRIAL SCHEDULE

SAP AG, et al.,

26

Defendants.

27
28
SVI-109303v1

DEFS.’ RESP. TO ORACLE’S
STATEMENT RE: TRIAL SCHEDULE
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

1

Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc. (collectively

2

“Defendants”) submit this Response to Oracle International Corporation’s (“Oracle”) Statement

3

Regarding Trial Schedule. Defendants are ready, willing and able to try this case and are

4

prejudiced by delay. Defendants therefore ask that the Court maintain the current case schedule,

5

including pretrial deadlines, at least through the pretrial deadlines set by the Court—including the

6

June 8 hearing on evidentiary issues and the June 13 deadline to submit deposition designation

7

objections, jury instructions and an updated jury questionnaire. That way, should Invista B.V. v.

8

E.I du Pont de Nemours (S.D.N.Y.) settle before then, this case will be ready to try on the current

9

schedule; if Invista has not settled by then, at least this case will be in the best position to quickly

10
11

resume, should it have to trail.
As the Court has stated, having a three-week rather than a two-week trial makes it much

12

more difficult to find an opening on the Court’s schedule. It is worth noting that Oracle’s witness

13

and exhibit lists and deposition designations are devoted heavily to evidence on liability issues

14

and alleged willfulness. This will become even more evident as the Court considers the exhibits

15

submitted for consideration at the June 8 hearing and the depositions designations for which

16

objections will be submitted June 13. The evidence actually necessary to prove lost and

17

infringer’s profits could efficiently be presented in two weeks.

18
19

Respectfully submitted.
Dated: May 31, 2012

20

JONES DAY
By: /s/ Tharan Gregory Lanier
Tharan Gregory Lanier

21

Counsel for Defendants
SAP AG, SAP AMERICA, INC., and
TOMORROWNOW, INC.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

DEFS.’ RESP. TO ORACLE’S
STATEMENT RE: TRIAL SCHEDULE

SVI-109303v1

-2-

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