Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 735

Proposed Form of Verdict by Oracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. (Alinder, Zachary) (Filed on 8/5/2010)

Download PDF
Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al Doc. 735 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP DONN P. PICKETT (SBN 72257) GEOFFREY M. HOWARD (SBN 157468) HOLLY A. HOUSE (SBN 136045) ZACHARY J. ALINDER (SBN 209009) BREE HANN (SBN 215695) Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111-4067 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 donn.pickett@bingham.com geoff.howard@bingham.com holly.house@bingham.com zachary.alinder@bingham.com bree.hann@bingham.com BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 dboies@bsfllp.com STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 sholtzman@bsfllp.com DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: 650.506.4846 Facsimile: 650.506.7114 dorian.daley@oracle.com jennifer.gloss@oracle.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) ORACLE'S [PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM Date: Time: Place: Judge: 1 ORACLE'S [PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM Dockets.Justia.com SAP AG, et al., Defendants. September 30, 2010 9:00 am 3rd Floor, Courtroom 3 Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pursuant to the Court's Pretrial Instructions, Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Oracle") submit their proposed jury verdict form, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which contains no reference to submitting party. While reserving objections to the substance of Defendants' proposed jury verdict form for a later date, Oracle objects to the form of Defendants' submission of their proposed jury verdict form for at least two reasons. First, Defendants have not submitted a final and complete jury verdict form. Their proposed jury verdict form includes over 21 bracketed inserts to fill in later, for example "[Table to be inserted that will solicit jurors to answer this question for each registration asserted at trial.]." Oracle confirmed and re-confirmed with Defendants the list of copyright registrations that they propose to include on the actual jury verdict form, so there is no reason why Defendants' proposed submission could not be submitted in final form. Oracle requested that Defendants complete and submit the actual jury verdict form that they propose to have the jury complete, but Defendants rejected that request. Second, even in the form submitted, Defendants' proposed jury verdict form contains 266 separate questions across over 66 pages for the jury to consider. If Defendants had completed their form and included Oracle's 111 current registrations for each of Defendants' 21 proposed bracket inserts that would have further expanded Defendants' submission to an estimated 171 pages. Defendants also leave blanks for tables to be inserted later for Oracle's contract claims, apparently intending to treat every version of Oracle's website Terms of Use as requiring a separate determination from the jury, regardless of whether there is any meaningful variation in the relevant terms. Further, Defendants' proposed jury verdict form is not internally consistent, proposing relatively simple, general verdict form provisions for their defenses, while proposing very complicated provisions for Oracle's claims. In short, the length, inconsistency and complexity of Defendants' proposed jury verdict form is unwarranted and would be prejudicial to Oracle. Nor is it consistent with Defendants' objections to Oracle's request for additional trial time. 2 ORACLE'S [PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ORACLE'S [PROPOSED] JURY VERDICT FORM Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) DATED: August 5, 2010 Bingham McCutchen LLP By: /s/ Zachary J. Alinder Zachary J. Alinder Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc. EXHIBIT A UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAP AG, et al., Defendants. CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) JURY VERDICT FORM Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is your duty to answer the questions presented in this verdict form. Copyright Infringement 1. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow infringed one or more of Oracle International Corporation's copyrights in the database software product family? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No 2. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow infringed one or more of Oracle International Corporation's copyrights in the PeopleSoft enterprise application software product family? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No 3. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow infringed one or more of Oracle International Corporation's copyrights in the J.D. Edwards enterprise application software product family? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No JURY VERDICT FORM 1 4. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow infringed one or more of Oracle International Corporation's copyrights in the Siebel Systems enterprise application software product family? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No If you answered "Yes" to any of questions 1, 2, 3, 4, please go to question 5. If you answered "No" to all of the above questions, please go to question 9. Contributory Infringement 5. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is contributorily liable to Oracle International Corporation for TomorrowNow's infringement? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for SAP AG.) _____ Yes _____ No 6. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is contributorily liable to Oracle International Corporation for TomorrowNow's infringement? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for SAP America.) _____ Yes _____ No Vicarious Infringement 7. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is vicariously liable to Oracle International Corporation for TomorrowNow's infringement? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for SAP AG.) _____ Yes _____ No JURY VERDICT FORM 2 8. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is vicariously liable to Oracle International Corporation for TomorrowNow's infringement? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for SAP AG America.) _____ Yes _____ No Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 3 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 9. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow is directly liable to Oracle USA for violating the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No 10. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow is directly liable to Oracle International Corporation for violating the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No If you answered "Yes" to question 9 or 10, please go to question 11. If you answered "No" to both question 9 and 10, please go to question 13. 11. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's violations of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA and/or OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No 12. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's violations of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA and/or OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 4 California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act 13. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow is directly liable to Oracle USA for violating the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No 14. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow is directly liable to Oracle International Corporation for violating the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No If you answered "Yes" to question 13 or 14, please go to question 15. If you answered "No" to both question 13 and 14, please go to question 17. 15. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA and/or OIC; "No" is a finding for SAP AG.) _____ Yes _____ No 16. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's violations of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA and/or OIC; "No" is a finding for SAP America.) _____ Yes _____ No JURY VERDICT FORM 5 17. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle USA Corporation for violating section 502(c)(6) of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for SAP AG and/or SAP America.) SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No 18. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle International Corporation for violating section 502(c)(6) of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for SAP AG and/or SAP America.) SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 6 Breach of Contract 19. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow is directly liable to Oracle USA for breaching one or more contracts and causing harm to Oracle USA? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow.) _____ Yes _____ No If you answered "Yes" to question 19, please go to question 20. If you answered "No" to question 19, please go to question 22. 20. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's breach of contract? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for SAP AG.) _____ Yes _____ No 21. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's breach of contract? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for SAP America.) _____ Yes Please go to the next page. _____ No JURY VERDICT FORM 7 Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage 22. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle USA for intentionally interfering with Oracle USA's prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America.) TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No 23. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle International Corp. for intentionally interfering with Oracle International Corp.'s prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America.) TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No 24. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle EMEA for intentionally interfering with Oracle EMEA's prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle EMEA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America.) TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No JURY VERDICT FORM 8 If you found that TomorrowNow is liable in response to questions 22, 23, or 24, please go to question 25. If you answered "No" as to TomorrowNow in all three of those questions, please go to question 27. 25. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's intentional interference with prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA, Oracle International Corp., and/or OEMEA; "No" is a finding for SAP AG.) _____ Yes _____ No 26. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's intentional interference with prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA, Oracle International Corp., and/or OEMEA; "No" is a finding for SAP America.) _____ Yes _____ No Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 9 Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage 27. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle USA for negligently interfering with Oracle USA's prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America.) TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No 28. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle International Corp. for negligently interfering with Oracle International Corp.'s prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for OIC; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America.) TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No 29. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America is directly liable to Oracle EMEA for negligently interfering with Oracle EMEA's prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle EMEA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America.) TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No If you found that TomorrowNow is liable in response to questions 27, 28, or 29, please go to question 30. If you answered "No" as to TomorrowNow in all three of those questions, please go to question 32. JURY VERDICT FORM 10 30. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's negligent interference with prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA, Oracle International Corp., and/or OEMEA; "No" is a finding for SAP AG.) _____ Yes _____ No 31. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's negligent interference with prospective economic advantage? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA, Oracle International Corp., and/or OEMEA; "No" is a finding for SAP America.) _____ Yes _____ No Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 11 Trespass to Chattels 32. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow is directly liable to Oracle USA for trespass to chattels? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow) _____ Yes _____ No If you answered "Yes" to question 32, please go to question 33. If you answered "No" to question 32, please go to question 35. 33. Is it more likely than not that SAP AG is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's trespass to chattels? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for SAP AG.) _____ Yes _____ No 34. Is it more likely than not that SAP America is indirectly liable for TomorrowNow's trespass to chattels? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA; "No" is a finding for SAP America.) _____ Yes _____ No Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 12 Unjust Enrichment 35. Is it more likely than not that TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America were unjustly enriched at the expense of Oracle USA, Oracle International Corp., OEMEA, and/or Siebel Systems Inc.? ("Yes" is a finding for Oracle USA, Oracle International Corp., OEMEA, and/or Siebel Systems Inc.; "No" is a finding for TomorrowNow, SAP AG, and/or SAP America.) TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 13 Damages If you found that any of the defendants are liable to any of the plaintiffs above (that is, if you answered any of the questions above with a "Yes,"), please answer the questions below. 36. On its claims for copyright infringement, we award Oracle International Corp. compensatory damages in the amount of ____________________. 37. On its claims for violation of the CFAA and/or the CDAFA, we award Oracle USA compensatory damages in the amount of _____________________. 38. On its claims for violation of the CFAA and/or the CDAFA, we award Oracle International Corp. compensatory damages in the amount of _____________________. Do not award duplicate damages for the same injury. If you have already awarded Oracle International Corp. damages on other claims that together fully compensate Oracle International Corp. on these claims, write "0" in the blank above, even if you found liability. If you already awarded Oracle International Corp. damages on other claims, that together do not fully compensate Oracle International Corp. on these claims, write in the blank above the additional amounts that you find are necessary to fully compensate Oracle International Corp. on this claim. 39. On its claims for breach of contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, and trespass to chattels we award Oracle USA compensatory damages in the amount of _________________________. Do not award duplicate damages for the same injury. If you have already awarded Oracle USA damages on other claims that together fully compensate Oracle USA on these claims, write "0" in the blank above, even if you found liability. If you already awarded Oracle USA damages on other claims, that together do not fully compensate Oracle USA on these claims, write in the blank above the additional amounts that JURY VERDICT FORM 14 you find are necessary to fully compensate Oracle USA on these claims. 40. On its claims for interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, we award Oracle International Corp. compensatory damages in the amount of _________________________. Do not award duplicate damages for the same injury. If you have already awarded Oracle International Corp. damages on other claims that together fully compensate Oracle International Corp. on these claims, write "0" in the blank above, even if you found liability. If you already awarded Oracle USA damages on other claims, that together do not fully compensate Oracle International Corp. on these claims, write in the blank above the additional amounts that you find are necessary to fully compensate Oracle International Corp. on these claims. 41. On its claims for interference with prospective economic advantage and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, we award Oracle EMEA compensatory damages in the amount of _________________________. 42. On their claims for unjust enrichment, we award Plaintiffs ________________. Do not award duplicate damages for the same injury. If you have already awarded Plaintiffs damages on other claims that together award Plaintiffs the full amounts by which defendant(s) were unjustly enriched, write "0" in the blank above, even if you found liability. If you already awarded Plaintiffs damages on other claims, that together do not award Plaintiffs the full amounts by which defendant(s) were unjustly enriched, write in the blank above the additional amounts that you find are necessary to fully compensate Plaintiffs on these claims. Please go to the next page. JURY VERDICT FORM 15 If you found any defendant liable, directly or indirectly, for violations of the CDAFA (questions 13-18), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (questions 2226), or trespass to chattels (questions 32-34), please answer the following questions: 43. We find that the following defendants engaged in conduct that was malicious, oppressive or in reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs' rights: TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ Yes _____ No _____ No _____ No If you answered "Yes" with respect to any defendant in response to question 43, please state the amount of punitive damages you award, if any, against that defendant: 44. We award punitive damages in the amount of TomorrowNow SAP AG SAP America ________________________________ ________________________________ ________________________________ Dated _______________________ ______________________________________ Foreperson JURY VERDICT FORM 16

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?