Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1076
MOTION in Limine re Peter Kessler Testimony re Android Code Modifications filed by Google Inc.. Responses due by 5/21/2012. Replies due by 5/29/2012. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 5/6/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
rvannest@kvn.com
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
canderson@kvn.com
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
dpurcell@kvn.com
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415 391 5400
Facsimile:
415 397 7188
KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
fzimmer@kslaw.com
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
csabnis@kslaw.com
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.318.1200
Fax: 415.318.1300
KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
sweingaertner@kslaw.com
ROBERT F. PERRY
rperry@kslaw.com
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: 212.556.2100
Fax: 212.556.2222
IAN C. BALLON - #141819
ballon@gtlaw.com
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
meekerh@gtlaw.com
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: 650.328.8500
Fax: 650.328.8508
13
14
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
18
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
19
Plaintiff,
20
v.
21
GOOGLE INC.,
22
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
MOTION IN LIMINE RE PETER
KESSLER TESTIMONY RE ANDROID
CODE MODIFICATIONS
Dept.:
Judge:
Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup
Defendant.
23
24
25
26
27
28
MIL RE KESSLER TESTIMONY RE ANDROID CODE MODIFICATIONS
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
661991.04
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
Google moves to exclude testimony by Oracle engineer Peter Kessler regarding alleged
2
3
use of the ’104 patent in Android’s Dalvik virtual machine source code and modifications that
4
Oracle engineers allegedly made to source code. The issue is whether Mr. Kessler, who was
5
never disclosed by Oracle as a witness who would provide opinion testimony, can provide such
6
expert testimony on behalf of Oracle. He cannot, for at least three reasons. First, Oracle
7
disclosed a different engineer, Mr. Vandette, to testify on the topic of Google’s alleged use of the
8
’104 patent and the steps he took to turn off the allegedly infringing features in Android. Second,
9
the only testimony for which Oracle disclosed Mr. Kessler was Oracle’s—not Google’s—
10
practice of the asserted claims of the patents in suit. Third, at deposition, Oracle blocked
11
questioning regarding the very topic for which it now apparently intends to present Mr. Kessler,
12
asserting privilege.
13
II.
14
ARGUMENT
A.
15
16
Oracle disclosed Mr. Vandette—not Mr. Kessler—to testify about Google’s
use of the ’104 patent and the steps taken to disable that functionality in the
Dalvik source code.
The demonstrative slides disclosed by Oracle to Google in connection with Mr. Kessler’s
17
testimony fall into two categories: (1) side-by-side comparisons of Android’s Dalvik source code
18
in modified and unmodified form; and (2) slides related to “Use of the ’104 Patent in the Dalvik
19
Sources” (as reflected in the titles). This does not square with Oracle’s disclosures pursuant to
20
Rule 26(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Those disclosures, dated July 29, 2011,
21
include three Oracle employees designated to offer opinion testimony: Mssrs. Landau, Poore,
22
and Vandette. Each is disclosed regarding Dalvik code modifications and benchmark
23
performance testing related to particular patents. The disclosure for Mr. Vandette stated, in
24
relevant part:
25
26
27
28
Mr. Vandette is a current employee of Oracle who may present testimony on the
subject of performance benchmark analysis and testing. Mr. Vandette may testify
about the performance benchmark analysis and testing he conducted to measure
the benefits Android obtains from practicing United States Patent Nos. RE38,104
(“the ’104 patent”) and 6,910,205 (“the ’205 patent”). Mr. Vandette may also
testify about the performance benchmark analysis and testing he conducted to
1
MIL RE KESSLER TESTIMONY RE ANDROID CODE MODIFICATIONS
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
661991.04
1
2
3
measure the benefits Java SE Embedded obtains from practicing the ’205 patent.
Mr. Vandette may also provide testimony regarding the ways in which Android
practices the ’104 and ’205 patents, and the steps he took to turn off the patented
features to measure the performance hits to Android.
4
Oracle America, Inc.’s Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(C) (July 29, 2011)
5
(emphases added). In short, Oracle disclosed Mr. Vandette to testify about Android’s alleged use
6
of the ’104 patent and the steps he allegedly took to modify the Android source code for his
7
benchmark tests. And while Oracle supplemented its Rule 26(a)(2)(C) disclosure on February 7,
8
2012, that supplemented disclosure only added Mr. Reinhold, not Mr. Kessler.
9
Based on the demonstrative slides, it seems Oracle wants to change horses. The problem
10
is, Oracle never disclosed Mr. Kessler as an employee expert regarding Android’s alleged use of
11
the ’104 patent and the steps he took to modify the Android source code for his benchmark tests.
12
Because Mr. Kessler was not so disclosed—in contrast to Mr. Vandette, who was explicitly
13
disclosed—Oracle should be precluded from eliciting from Mr. Kessler testimony regarding
14
Android’s alleged use of the ’104 patent and the steps taken to modify the Android source code.
15
16
B.
Mr. Kessler was only disclosed to testify about Oracle’s use of the ’104 patent.
In addition to Oracle’s failure to disclose Mr. Kessler as an employee expert to testify
17
about Android’s use of the ’104 patent and the steps taken to modify the Android source code—
18
and its actual disclosure of someone else on those topics—Oracle’s witness list also failed to
19
disclose Mr. Kessler regarding these topics. According to Oracle’s witness list, “Mr. Kessler is
20
an Oracle engineer. He may testify regarding Oracle’s products that practice the asserted claims
21
of the patents-in-suit.” (Dkt. No. 525-2 at 8 (emphasis added).) He is not disclosed regarding
22
Google’s alleged use of the ’104 patent or modifications to Android source code. As such, he
23
should be precluded from testifying on those issues.
24
25
26
27
28
C.
Oracle asserted privilege regarding the topics for which it now intends Mr.
Kessler to testify.
If the lack of proper disclosures are not sufficient grounds to exclude Mr. Kessler’s
proposed testimony, the fact that Oracle asserted privilege over the very topics for which Mr.
Kessler is now being offered should be. As reflected in the demonstrative slides, the main topic
2
MIL RE KESSLER TESTIMONY RE ANDROID CODE MODIFICATIONS
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
661991.04
1
for which Oracle intends to use Mr. Kessler is “Use of the ’104 Patent in the Dalvik Sources.” In
2
other words, alleged infringement of the ’104 patent by Android. But when asked whether he did
3
an infringement analysis for the ’104 patent, Oracle limited the answer to a simple yes or no
4
question.
Q. Have you ever done an infringement analysis on Android products for the
’104 patent?
Mr. Norton: You may answer that question a yes or no.
A: Yes.
5
6
7
8
9
See Kessler Dep. 71:13-17. Oracle would not even allow questioning as to the timing of this
analysis, instructing the witness not to answer.
Q. When did you conduct these infringement analyses?
MR. NORTON: I'll object and instruct the witness not to answer the question on
grounds of attorney-client privilege and work product.
Q. Will you follow that instruction?
A. Yes, I will.
10
11
12
13
Id. at 73:5-12. Given its refusal to allow discovery into Mr. Kessler’s infringement analysis of
14
the ’104 patent, Oracle cannot now offer Mr. Kessler to testify at trial regarding “Use of the ’104
15
Patent in the Dalvik Sources.”
16
III.
CONCLUSION
17
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant a motion in limine prohibiting Mr.
18
Kessler from testifying regarding Android’s alleged practice of the ’104 patent and the steps
19
taken to modify the Android source code.
20
Dated: May 6, 2012
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
21
22
By:
/s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
MIL RE KESSLER TESTIMONY RE ANDROID CODE MODIFICATIONS
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
661991.04
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?