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 Att. 1

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. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION ORACLE USA, INC., et al., Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL) v. Plaintiffs, DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY M. HOWARD IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF § 410(c) MOTION [Civ. L.R. 6-2] Judge: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton
Case No. 07-CV-01658 PJH (EDL)

SAP AG, et al., Defendants.

DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY M. HOWARD IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF § 410(c) MOTION

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, Geoffrey M. Howard, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California and a

partner at Bingham McCutchen LLP, counsel of record for plaintiffs Oracle USA, Inc., Oracle International Corporation, Oracle EMEA Ltd. and Siebel Systems, Inc. (collectively, "Oracle" or "Plaintiffs"). I make this declaration in support of the Stipulated Request For Order Changing Time for Hearing of § 410(c) Motion, jointly brought by Oracle and Defendants SAP AG, SAP America, and TomorrowNow, Inc. ("Defendants"; together with Oracle, the "Parties"). I have personal knowledge of the facts stated within this Declaration and could testify competently to them if required. 2. The Court has set the Pretrial Conference for September 30, 2010. See

Stipulated Revised Case Management and Pretrial Order, D.I. 325, at 2. The Court has granted the Parties leave to notice motions pursuant to Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 1993), for hearing on the date of the Pretrial Conference. See Case Management and Pretrial Order, D.I. 84, at 2. The Court has ordered that motions in limine be noticed for hearing on the date of the Pretrial Conference, as well. See id. at 4. 3. Oracle will file a motion pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 410(c) (the "§ 410(c)

Motion") regarding the evidentiary weight to be accorded six of Oracle's copyright registrations that were not obtained within five years of publication of the underlying work. 4. The Parties have agreed, subject to the Court's preference, that this motion

should proceed on the same calendar as the scheduled Daubert motions, for the efficiency and convenience of the Court and the Parties. However, September 30, 2010, the date of the Pretrial Conference and the date set for the Daubert motions, is not a date on the Court's motion calendar. See Civ. L.R. 7-2 (requiring that motions be "noticed in writing on the motion calendar of the assigned Judge"). After Oracle files the § 410(c) Motion on August 19, 2010, the next available date on the Court's motion calendar under the Local Rules would be September 29, 2010. See Civ. L.R. 7-2 (requiring 35-day notice). 5. 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 2
DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY M. HOWARD IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF § 410(c) MOTION

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

§ 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"). These one-day extensions would not affect the overall case schedule. 6. The Parties have previously sought and received unrelated extensions to

the case schedule. No extensions related to the § 410(c) Motion have been previously sought.

I declare under the laws of the United States and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on August 18, 2010, in San Francisco, California.

____/s/_ Geoffrey M. Howard ____ Geoffrey M. Howard

3
DECLARATION OF GEOFFREY M. HOWARD IN SUPPORT OF STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER CHANGING TIME FOR HEARING OF § 410(c) MOTION