Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 1213

AMENDED JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 8/3/12. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
OAKLAND DIVISION
11
12
ORACLE USA, INC., et al.,

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

13
Plaintiffs,

AMENDED JUDGMENT

14
v.
15
SAP AG, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18

Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation, Proposed Form of Judgment and Proposed Order

19

(filed August 2, 2012), Amended Trial Stipulation and Order No. 1 Regarding Liability,

20

Dismissal of Claims, Preservation of Defenses, and Objections to Evidence at Trial (Dkt. No.

21

965), Additional Trial Stipulation and Order Regarding Claims for Damages and Attorneys Fees

22

(Dkt. Nos. 961 and 969), Order Re Motions For Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 762), Order

23

Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part and Denying It in Part (Dkt. No. 224), and Order Granting

24

Defendants’ Motion for JMOL, and Motion for New Trial; Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for

25

New Trial; Order Partially Vacating Judgment (Dkt. No. 1081), IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED

26

AND ORDERED that:

27
28

(1)

JUDGMENT is entered against Defendant TomorrowNow, Inc. on Plaintiff
Oracle International Corporation’s claim for direct copyright infringement
AMENDED JUDGMENT
Case No. 07-CV-1658 PJH (EDL)

1

and against Defendants SAP AG and SAP America, Inc. on Plaintiff Oracle

2

International Corporation’s claim for indirect copyright infringement. On

3

these claims, Plaintiff Oracle International Corporation shall recover from

4

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

5

(“Defendants”), jointly and severally in the amount of 306 million U.S.

6

dollars ($306,000,000 (US)),which is the entirety of the relief entered for

7

these claims (not including the stipulation negotiated between the Parties

8
9

regarding destruction of infringing materials).
(2)

10

Oracle International Corporation, and Siebel Systems, Inc.’s (“Oracle,” and

11

together with Defendants, “the Parties”) claims for past and future

12

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (including investigative costs)

13

associated with Oracle’s investigation and prosecution of its claims in this

14

case, for which the Parties agreed that Oracle should recover, and has

15

already been paid by Defendants, the amount of $120 million

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

JUDGMENT is entered against Defendants on Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc.,

($120,000,000).
(3)

JUDGMENT is entered for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International
Corporation, and/or Siebel Systems, Inc., and against Defendant
TomorrowNow, Inc. on all liability for all claims, including for violations of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(4), (a)(5)(i), (a)(5)(ii), and (a)(5)(iii) (the
Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) and California Penal Code §§
502(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(6) and (c)(7) (California’s Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act), breach of contract, intentional interference with prospective
economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic
advantage, unfair competition, trespass to chattels, unjust
enrichment/restitution, and for an accounting, without separate monetary
damages or monetary relief, including punitive damages, or additional

28
-2-

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

1

injunctive relief by way of these claims. The recovery on these claims is

2

included in paragraph (2) above and no other damages or injunctive or other

3

relief is awarded by way of these claims.

4

(4)

5

JUDGMENT of dismissal with prejudice is entered as previously stipulated
by the Parties, on all claims of Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle

6

International Corporation, and/or Siebel Systems, Inc. against SAP AG and

7

SAP America, Inc., for alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C),

8

(a)(4), (a)(5)(i), (a)(5)(ii), and (a)(5)(iii) (the Federal Computer Fraud and

9

Abuse Act) and California Penal Code §§ 502(c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(6) and (c)(7)

10

(California’s Computer Data Access and Fraud Act), breach of contract,

11

intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent

12

interference with prospective economic advantage, unfair competition,

13

trespass to chattels, unjust enrichment/restitution, and for an accounting.

14

(5)

15

JUDGMENT of dismissal is entered, as previously ordered by the Court, on
all claims brought by Oracle Systems Corporation, J.D. Edwards Europe

16

and Oracle EMEA Limited.

17

(6)

Except as specified in paragraph (2) above, no costs are awarded.

18
19

S

, 2012

By:

NO

RT

23

O ORD

IT IS S

n
Judges J.Phyllis J. Hamilton
Hamilto
hylli
Judge P
United Stated District Judge

ER

A

H

24

ERED

FO

August 3

LI

Dated:

UNIT
ED

22

RT
U
O

21

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

R NIA

20

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

25
26
27
28
-3-

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