Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1078
MOTION in Limine re Evidence Allegedly Supporting Knowledge Requirement for Indirect Infringement filed by Google Inc.. Responses due by 5/21/2012. Replies due by 5/29/2012. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 5/6/2012)
EXHIBIT A
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
4
5
--------------------------
6
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,
)
)
8
vs.
)
9
GOOGLE, INC.,
)
10
11
Defendant.
No. CV 10-03561 WHA
)
--------------------------
12
13
-- HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY--
14
15
Videotaped Personal Capacity deposition of
16
ANDREW E. RUBIN, taken at the law offices of
17
King & Spalding LLP, 333 Twin Dolphin Drive,
18
Suite 400, Redwood Shores, California,
19
commencing at 8:39 a.m., on Wednesday,
20
July 27, 2011, before Leslie Rockwood, RPR,
21
CSR No. 3462.
22
23
24
25
PAGES 1 - 296
Page 1
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
Foerster, counsel for Oracle.
2
3
MS. TERAGUCHI:
Yuka Teraguchi of Morrison &
Foerster, counsel for Oracle.
4
MR. HOLTZMAN:
Steve Holtzman, Boies,
5
Schiller & Flexner, counsel for Oracle America.
6
MR. REBLITZ-RICHARDSON:
08:40:33
Beko
7
Reblitz-Richardson, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, on behalf
8
of Oracle America.
9
MS. TIPTON:
Jessica Tipton, Morrison &
10
Foerster, on behalf of Oracle America.
11
MS. ANDERSON:
08:40:44
Christa Anderson for Google,
12
Inc., and the witness.
13
MR. BABER:
Bruce Baber, King & Spalding, for
15
MR. HWANG:
Renny Hwang of Google.
16
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:
17
The witness will be sworn in, and we can
14
18
19
20
Google.
08:40:49
Thank you.
proceed.
THE REPORTER:
Would you raise your right
hand, please.
21
You do solemnly state that the evidence you
22
shall give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole
23
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
24
THE WITNESS:
25
THE REPORTER:
Yes.
Thank you.
Page 6
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
A.
Okay.
2
Q.
Before Google acquired Android Inc. --
3
MS. ANDERSON:
Sorry, Counsel, before you
4
start your question, could you clarify which deposition
5
you're starting on?
6
for today.
Because you've noticed a few things
7
MR. JACOBS:
8
MS. ANDERSON:
9
08:42:15
Yes.
And I just want to make sure
we're clear on the record.
10
MR. JACOBS:
Fair enough.
So this is the
11
individual deposition, and I'll -- we'll be clear when we
12
08:42:22
go into 30(b)(6) territory.
13
14
MS. ANDERSON:
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
Thank you, Counsel.
Before Google acquired
15
Android, did you conduct any review of Sun patents as
16
they might relate to your planned development of what
17
became the Android system?
18
A.
No, I didn't.
19
Q.
08:42:31
From the acquisition to the filing of the
20
lawsuit by Oracle America against Google on August 12th,
21
2010, did you conduct any review of Sun, later Oracle
22
America, patents as they related to Android -- the
23
Android system?
24
25
MS. ANDERSON:
And objection.
08:42:55
Just caution
the witness to the extent if responding to the question
08:43:11
Page 8
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
would cause you to reveal any communications with
2
counsel, I instruct you not to answer on grounds of
3
privilege, but otherwise, you may answer the question.
4
THE WITNESS:
5
Q.
No.
BY MR. JACOBS:
Let's just spend a minute on
6
that privilege instruction.
7
do today in order to do my job is to make a clear record
8
of where you've been instructed not to answer, where
9
you've followed that instruction, and where, but for the
10
instruction, there might have been testimony, so that the
11
Judge can look at the record and determine clearly where
12
Google, as the litigant, is taking a position on the
13
08:43:23
privilege.
14
One of the things I need to
08:43:36
So your counsel just instructed you not to
15
answer to the extent the answer might reveal privileged
16
information, and you're following that instruction;
17
correct?
18
A.
That's correct.
19
Q.
08:43:48
But for her instruction, would you have been
20
able -- would you have provided testimony on the question
21
of a review of Sun, later Oracle America's patents in
22
connection with Android?
23
24
25
A.
08:43:59
Can you ask the question in -- I don't
understand.
Q.
Did that instruction cause you to answer the
08:44:13
Page 9
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
question differently than had the instruction not been
2
given?
3
A.
No.
4
Q.
Why did you not conduct a review of Sun,
5
later Oracle America's patents as they might relate to
6
Android?
7
A.
08:44:28
Well, look, I looked at the nature of Sun's
8
business, I looked at the nature of Oracle's business.
9
I'm a computer scientist.
I graduated with a degree in
10
computer science.
11
computer that, you know, used the basic language that had
12
a bytecode interpreter.
13
I had, in 1978, a Commodore PET
08:44:43
So I knew generally the area that I was
14
working in, obviously, and I didn't think there was any
15
conflict.
16
any patents.
17
time.
18
Q.
So I didn't think there was a need to review
08:44:58
This stuff has existed for a very long
You were aware that Sun, later Oracle
19
America, had an extensive patent portfolio in the area of
20
Java; correct?
08:45:14
21
MS. ANDERSON:
22
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Form.
I -- you know, again, I didn't
23
look specifically at the breadth of their intellectual
24
property.
25
you're going to protect your work.
I assume, you know, if you're in a business,
But also it was my
08:45:26
Page 10
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
assumption that this work had been there, you know,
2
pretty much, you know, part of computer science that
3
you're taught in college.
4
5
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
had an extensive portfolio of Java-related patents?
6
MS. ANDERSON:
7
THE WITNESS:
8
9
Q.
Objection.
08:45:39
Form.
That's not what I said.
BY MR. JACOBS:
Were you -- were you not
aware of that?
10
11
So you were aware that Sun
A.
I didn't -- I honestly didn't spend a lot of
08:45:48
time thinking about it.
155
12
(Exhibit PX305 was marked for
13
identification.)
14
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
15
string.
16
155
Exhibit 305 is an email
The last email on the string is dated
November 12, 2006.
17
08:46:39
Do you see that?
18
A.
Yes.
19
Q.
I'd like to ask you about your email to -- I
20
believe to Chris DiBona, but maybe you can help interpret
21
how the string should be read.
22
dated November 12, 2006 that reads as follows:
23
been advised that Sun will offer a link exception to GPL
24
so that you can link your app with their class libraries
25
and not have the copy left force you to Open Source your
08:46:48
It's the one from you
"I've
08:47:11
Page 11
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
app.
If they do not, then it's a play for a dual
2
license.
They still have patents and trademarks."
3
Do you see that?
4
A.
Uh-huh.
5
Q.
That is what you wrote; correct?
6
A.
Correct.
7
Q.
And who did you write that to?
8
9
MS. ANDERSON:
Form.
08:47:17
I just want to -- objection.
The witness should have an opportunity to review
10
the document before you begin asking a series of
11
questions about it.
12
13
If you need an opportunity, go ahead.
08:47:25
If you
don't --
14
THE WITNESS:
It's quite a detailed document,
15
but it mostly contains a forward of a press release made
16
by Sun Microsystems.
17
I was responding to the entire thread which had an alias
18
on it, which was the Open Source team, which included
19
08:47:33
Chris DiBona.
I believe I was responding -- well,
20
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
And who is Greg Stein?
21
A.
Greg Stein, I believe, was one of the product
22
guys on the Open Source team.
23
08:47:54
Open Source, I believe.
24
25
Q.
He was an evangelist for
The Open Source team is -- what is the Open
Source team?
08:48:11
Page 12
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
A.
It's a team of evangelists that is managed by
2
Chris DiBona, and they go out and educate people about
3
Open Source, what it means to be Open Source, how Open
4
Source can benefit their businesses, and so forth.
5
6
Q.
trademarks."
You wrote:
"They still have patents and
08:48:24
Correct?
7
A.
That's correct.
8
Q.
And the "they" is Sun; correct?
9
A.
That's correct.
10
Q.
And you were saying -- you were noting this
11
in order to make sure that people understood that there's
12
a range of intellectual property rights associated with
13
08:48:31
the program in question; correct?
14
MS. ANDERSON:
15
THE WITNESS:
16
17
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
Objection to form.
No, that's not correct.
08:48:47
Well, what did you mean by
"they still have patents and trademarks"?
18
A.
Well, the email was discussing -- so this is
19
in response to Sun basically announcing that they were
20
Open Sourcing parts of Java, and the conversation was
21
about Sun's dual license strategy.
22
it's effectively useless to Open Source something under
23
GPL and use it in embedded devices like cell phones
24
because there's this trick in the GPL which is of viral
25
nature.
08:48:58
Because with GPL,
08:49:17
Page 13
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
access, and then forcing people to come back to Sun
2
because the threat of a suit, if you adopt their stuff,
3
was real.
4
Q.
When you wrote "they still have patents and
5
trademarks," what was in your mind about what patents Sun
6
had?
7
A.
08:51:39
Look, like I said before, I assume they're
8
running a business, they're inventing intellectual
9
property, they're protecting it through the patent
10
system.
Through GPL, I didn't know what they were, but I
11
knew that it was dangerous to use the stuff without
12
knowing exactly what it was.
13
08:51:53
So effectively you have to go back to Sun,
14
ask them what they considered their intellectual property
15
and, you know, try to figure out what the trick was if
16
you wanted to use the technology.
17
18
Q.
08:52:06
Now, by that time, by 2006, you had applied
for patents over the course of your carrier; correct?
19
A.
Yes.
20
Q.
You had applied for a patent -- for several
21
08:52:15
patents while you were at Danger; correct?
22
A.
Yes.
23
Q.
And since Google acquired Android, you've
24
25
applied for patents; correct?
A.
Google has applied for patents with my name
08:52:29
Page 16
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
intellectual property?
2
MS. ANDERSON:
3
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Form.
Well, look, I mean, so this
4
article looks great.
5
analysts are making speculations about Sun's business.
6
This is dated 2008.
7
they're related at all.
8
Q.
I haven't read it.
My email is 2006.
BY MR. JACOBS:
All sorts of
08:55:04
I don't think
But my question is:
As of
9
November 12th, 2006, when you wrote "they," referring to
10
Sun, "still have patents," were you aware that Sun had a
11
broad and deep portfolio of intellectual property?
12
MS. ANDERSON:
13
THE WITNESS:
Objection.
Form.
Yeah, I was not.
14
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
15
A.
I didn't know how -- I didn't know the
16
08:55:18
You were not?
08:55:26
breadth of Sun's portfolio.
17
Q.
Were you aware that -- sorry.
18
A.
I never investigated the breadth of Sun's
19
portfolio.
20
Q.
To the best of your knowledge, between
21
Google's acquisition of Android and the filing of the
22
lawsuit in this action, did Google ever investigate
23
Sun's, later Oracle America's patent portfolio as it
24
08:55:35
might relate to Android?
25
MS. ANDERSON:
Objection.
Again caution to
08:55:53
Page 19
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
the witness to the extent that responding to this
2
question would cause you to reveal any communications
3
with counsel, I instruct you not to answer on grounds of
4
privilege.
5
But otherwise, you may answer.
THE WITNESS:
Yeah, of the parts of Google
6
that I manage and I operate, the -- there was no
7
instruction to go investigate the breadth of Sun's patent
8
portfolio.
9
Q.
08:56:04
10
11
instruction.
A.
BY MR. JACOBS:
You referred to an
You said there was no instruction?
Yeah.
08:56:17
Me as managing a division with Google
12
didn't instruct anybody to go off and do something.
I
13
have no knowledge of somebody underneath me going off and
14
doing something to investigate the breadth of Sun's
15
portfolio.
16
Q.
08:56:32
The -- and you're following your counsel's --
17
I just need to do this privilege thing again.
18
following your counsel's instruction?
19
A.
Yeah.
You're
Obviously, like I don't have insight
20
into every -- you know, every team at Google.
21
large organized teams so they don't report to me.
22
there's another team that goes off and does something, I
23
may not know about it.
24
25
Q.
These are
08:56:43
If
So but for your counsel's instruction, would
your answer have been different to my question?
08:56:56
Page 20
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
answer the question?
2
THE WITNESS:
3
4
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
Yes, I am.
The lawsuit was filed on
October 12, 2010 -- excuse me, August -- start over.
5
The lawsuit was filed on August 12, 2010.
6
After the lawsuit was filed, did you conduct any review
7
of Oracle America's patent portfolio in connection with
8
09:02:43
Android development?
9
MS. ANDERSON:
Objection to the extent that
10
responding to this question would cause you to reveal any
11
communications with counsel, I instruct you not to answer
12
on grounds of privilege.
13
THE WITNESS:
09:03:04
Otherwise, you may answer.
I mean, look, all right, you
14
asked the question before whether I have personally done
15
reviews of the legal situation, and I answered no.
16
didn't change throughout the release cycles whether I did
17
or not.
18
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
It
09:03:18
So and just to be clear, my
19
earlier question was before the lawsuit, and now I was
20
asking after the lawsuit, and your answer is the same:
21
You have conducted no review?
22
23
24
25
A.
09:03:30
I personally am not responsible for legal
reviews for the Android system.
Q.
Are you aware of any review that has been
conducted of the Android system in view of Oracle
09:03:43
Page 26
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
enhancements, especially since we've been sued by Oracle
2
America, before we go off in a particular direction?
3
MS. ANDERSON:
Objection.
Form.
And
4
instruct the witness not to answer to the extent it calls
5
for any communications or would reveal any communications
6
with any counsel on the grounds of privilege.
7
THE WITNESS:
09:04:48
I mean, generally speaking, we
8
see software development as an innovation process so we
9
don't really second-guess innovation.
We do the
10
innovation -- we do it in a way that, you know, our
11
education and training, you know, teaches us to do, and
12
our goal is just to build great products that consumers
13
love.
14
15
Q.
09:05:11
MS. ANDERSON:
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
19
A.
I don't know.
21
22
Objection.
Form.
And the
same privilege instruction.
18
20
So the answer to my question
is "no"?
16
17
BY MR. JACOBS:
09:05:01
Are you -You can ask that question
again.
09:05:21
Q.
Okay.
Fair enough.
Let's start over.
As you have added functionality to Android
23
over time, have you ever conveyed to anyone at Google, as
24
we're adding enhancements, we should look at Oracle
25
America's patents and decide whether we're going to go
09:05:41
Page 28
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
off in a particular direction or not?
2
MS. ANDERSON:
Objection and instruct the
3
witness not to answer to the extent it would cause you to
4
reveal any communications with counsel on the grounds of
5
privilege.
6
09:05:54
THE WITNESS:
I mean, generally speaking, the
7
way you do innovation isn't you don't go look at somebody
8
else's work.
9
world and make sure it's the best it can possibly be.
10
11
You just do innovation in your own little
So
the answer would be no.
Q.
BY MR. JACOBS:
09:06:05
Similarly, as you have
12
expanded the markets in which Android is applied, say, to
13
tablets, have you asked or conveyed that any such review
14
should be conducted?
15
MS. ANDERSON:
Objection.
Form.
16
same instruction on grounds of privilege.
17
THE WITNESS:
09:06:17
disclose communications with counsel.
18
And also
You shouldn't
It's true for every Android
19
release, independent of what the form factor it's
20
released in.
21
Q.
09:06:27
BY MR. JACOBS:
And by "form factor," you're
22
referring to, for example, tablets as opposed to
23
handsets?
24
A.
Yeah, you know, four-inch screens versus
25
ten-inch screens.
There's no difference, in my mind.
09:06:37
Page 29
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
2
3
negotiations with the execs.
Q.
And that's so that you can protect the option
of going clean room; correct?
4
A.
Yeah.
I don't want to taint myself.
5
Q.
And we've talked about your clean room, the
6
way the clean room got established and how you
7
15:57:11
communicated the rules of the clean room.
8
9
One thing we didn't talk about specifically
in the context of clean room is patent issues.
So did
10
you have an understanding that the clean room would bear
11
on the question of whether Android would infringe
12
Sun/Oracle America patents?
13
MS. ANDERSON:
Objection.
14
15:57:23
Form.
Also, caution the witness to the extent
15
responding would cause you to reveal communication with
16
counsel, I instruct you not to answer on the grounds of
17
attorney-client privilege.
18
THE WITNESS:
No.
15:57:36
Generally speaking, a
19
clean room approach doesn't protect against patents.
20
There's no expectation.
21
15:57:47
As I said previously, VM technology has been
22
around forever.
23
doing was going to be a violation of anybody's IP.
24
Q.
25
reviewing the IP?
I didn't think the stuff that we were
BY MR. JACOBS:
And so that was based without
That was kind of an intuition on your
15:57:56
Page 249
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
1
I N D E X
2
3
4
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2011
5
6
WITNESS
EXAMINATION
7
8
ANDREW E. RUBIN, Personal Capacity
9
10
By Mr. Jacobs
7
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 293
Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services
866 299-5127
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?