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)

Download PDF
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)

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?