Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1120

Proposed Jury Instructions by Google Inc. Proposed Additional Language for Patent Jury Instruction Number 23. (Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 5/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST - # 84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON - # 184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL - # 191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone:
415 391 5400
Facsimile:
415 397 7188

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

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

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
GOOGLE INC.’S PROPOSED
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR
PATENT JURY INSTRUCTION NUMBER
23

GOOGLE INC.,

22

Defendant.

Dept.:
Judge:

Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup

23
24
25
26
27
28
GOOGLE’S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR JURY INSTRUCTION 23
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
665040.01

1
2
3

Pursuant to the Court’s invitation at the charging conference, Google proposes that the
Court add the following language to patent jury instruction number 23:

4

To establish willful blindness, it is not enough under the law to show that there is
merely a “known risk” that the induced acts are infringing, or that Google was
only deliberately indifferent to that risk.

5

The proposed language comes directly from Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,

6

131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011), the case that recognized the possibility of willful blindness being applied

7

to indirect infringement. Specifically, it is drawn from the following passage:

8
9
10
11

The test applied by the Federal Circuit in this case departs from the proper willful
blindness standard in two important respects. First, it permits a finding of
knowledge when there is merely a “known risk” that the induced acts are
infringing. Second, in demanding only “deliberate indifference” to that risk, the
Federal Circuit’s test does not require active efforts by an inducer to avoid
knowing about the infringing nature of the activities.
Id. at 2071 (emphases added).

12
13

Dated: May 10, 2012

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

14
15

By:

/s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1

GOOGLE’S PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE FOR JURY INSTRUCTION 23
Case No. 3:10-CV-03561 WHA
665040.01