Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Filing 763

Joint MOTION for Hearing of Oracle's Motion Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. Sec. 410(c); Proposed Order filed by Oracle EMEA Limited, Oracle International Corporation, Oracle USA Inc., Siebel Systems, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/30/2010 09:00 AM in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor, Oakland. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Geoffrey M. Howard)(Howard, Geoffrey) (Filed on 8/18/2010) Modified on 8/19/2010 (vlk, COURT STAFF).

Oracle Corporation et al v. SAP AG et al

Doc. 763

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: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail] STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: [phone] [e-mail] DORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049) JENNIFER GLOSS (SBN 154227) 500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 5op7 Redwood City, CA 94070 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650.506.7114 [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., et al.

JONES DAY ROBERT A. MITTELSTAEDT (SBN 060359) JASON McDONELL (SBN 115084) ELAINE WALLACE (SBN 197882) 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] JONES DAY THARAN GREGORY LANIER (SBN 138784) JANE L. FROYD (SBN 220776) 1755 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] JONES DAY SCOTT W. COWAN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) JOSHUA L. FUCHS (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 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.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., v. Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF ORACLE'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) [Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 6(b), Civil L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, 7-12]
Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF ORACLE'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

Dockets.Justia.com

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 I.

STIPULATED REQUEST TO CHANGE TIME PER CIV. L.R. 6-2 GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO PERMIT ORACLE'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) TO BE HEARD ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited and Siebel Systems, Inc. ("Plaintiffs") and Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc. ("Defendants"; together with Plaintiffs, the "Parties") respectfully submit this Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) and Civ. L.R. 6-1, 6-2, 7-1, and 7-12, requesting that the Court permit Oracle's motion pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (the "§ 410(c) Motion") to be heard at the Pretrial Conference set for September 30, 2010. In their Joint Pretrial Statement, the Parties agreed that "[t]he evidentiary weight to be given to six certificates of copyright registrations (and the factual statements in those registrations) . . . because the copyrights were not registered within five years of first publication" was a disputed point of law to be resolved by the Court. D.I. 745 at 75:19-23; see also 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (stating that the evidentiary weight to be given to certificates of registration for registrations not made within five years of first publication "shall be within the discretion of the court"). Plaintiffs will file a motion requesting that the Court exercise its discretion with respect to these six certificates of copyright registration. See Declaration of Geoffrey M. Howard in Support of Stipulated Request For Order Changing Time for Hearing of § 410(c) Motion ("Howard Decl."), ¶ 3. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-2, motions not otherwise excused "must be filed, served and noticed in writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge for hearing not less than 35 days after service of the motion." (emphasis added). Plaintiffs respectfully suggest that setting this motion for hearing on September 30, 2010, during the Parties' Pretrial Conference and in parallel with the current schedule for the parties' Daubert motions, would be efficient and convenient for both the Court and the parties. See Howard Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4. Defendants agreed to this proposed schedule and so stipulate. Id., ¶ 4. As September 30, 2010, is not a date on Your Honor's motion calendar, the Parties respectfully submit this Stipulated Request and [Proposed] 2 Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)
STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF ORACLE'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)

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

Order in compliance with Local Rules. The Parties have not previously requested relief for calendaring the § 410(c) Motion. Id., ¶ 6. Should Your Honor deny this Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order, the § 410(c) Motion will be set for September 29, 2010, or as soon thereafter as permitted by the Court. See id., ¶ 4. Therefore, the effect of the Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order would be, at most, to grant Defendants one additional calendar day for their Opposition to § 410(c) Motion, and to grant Plaintiffs one additional calendar day for their Reply in Support of § 410(c) Motion. See.Civ. L.R. 7-3(a) (requiring that any opposition "be served and filed not less than 21 days before the hearing date"); id. at (c) (requiring that any reply to an opposition "be served and filed not less than 14 days before the hearing date"). The Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order would therefore not have any significant impact on the schedule for the case. See Howard Decl., ¶ 5. For the reasons stated above and in the accompanying declaration, good cause exists to grant the Stipulated Request and [Proposed] Order, thereby allowing the § 410(c) Motion to be heard on September 30, 2010. DATED: August 18, 2010 BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP By: /s/Geoffrey M. Howard

Geoffrey M. Howard Attorneys for Plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Limited, and Siebel Systems, Inc.

In accordance with General Order No. 45, Rule X, the above signatory attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the signatory below.

3

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF ORACLE'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)

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

DATED: August 18, 2010

JONES DAY By: Greg Lanier Attorneys for Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, Inc., and TomorrowNow, Inc.

4

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF ORACLE'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)

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 Date: August ___, 2010

ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________ Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton United States District Judge

5

Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

STIPULATED REQUEST AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF ORACLE'S MOTION PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. § 410(c)