Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1152
MOTION for Judgment as a Matter of Law Outline of Oracle America, Inc.'s Rule 50(a) Motion at the Close of All Evidence In Phase Two filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Responses due by 5/17/2012. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 5/15/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
mdpeters@mofo.com
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
dmuino@mofo.com
755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
sholtzman@bsfllp.com
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
dorian.daley@oracle.com
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
deborah.miller@oracle.com
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com
500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
17
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
22
Plaintiff,
23
v.
24
Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA,
INC.’S RULE 50(A) MOTION AT
THE CLOSE OF ALL EVIDENCE IN
PHASE TWO
GOOGLE INC.
25
Defendant.
Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
26
27
28
OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S RULE 50(A) MOTION FOR PHASE TWO
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1528467
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
2
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
3
III.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
4
IV.
NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND THAT GOOGLE DID NOT
INFRINGE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’104 PATENT
5
A.
Android resolve.c infringes claims 11, 39, 40, and 41 of the ’104 patent
6
1.
Dalvik bytecode instructions contain symbolic references
7
B.
Android dexopt infringes claims 27 and 29 of the ’104 patent
8
1.
Dalvik bytecode instructions contain symbolic references
2.
Dexopt resolves symbolic references “dynamically rather than
statically”
3.
Under the correct claim construction, dexopt resolves symbolic
references “dynamically rather than statically”
9
10
11
12
13
V.
NO REASONABLE JURY COULD FIND THAT GOOGLE DID NOT
INFRINGE THE ASSERTED CLAIMS OF THE ’520 PATENT
14
A.
15
16
Android infringes claims 1 and 20 of the ’520 patent
1.
VI.
17
Android dx tool simulates execution of static array initialization
GOOGLE’S EQUITABLE DEFENSES FAIL
A.
Google Has Not Shown that Equitable Estoppel Bars Oracle’s Patent
Infringement Claims
B.
Google Has Not Shown that the Doctrine of Laches Applies to Oracle’s
Patent Infringement Claims
C.
Google Has Not Shown that Oracle or Sun Waived Its Right to Assert
Patent Infringement Claims
D.
Google Has Not Shown that Oracle or Sun Gave It an Implied License
to Use Oracle’s Patents
18
19
20
21
22
23
VII.
ALTERNATIVE GOOGLE DEFENSES THAT GOOGLE PLED BUT DID
NOT PRESENT TO THE JURY FAIL
24
A.
Google Has Not Shown Patent Misuse
B.
Google Has Not Shown Use By The United States
C.
Google Has Not Shown that Oracle or Sun Gave It an Express License
to Use Oracle’s Patents
25
26
27
28
OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S RULE 50(A) MOTION FOR PHASE TWO
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1528467
1
1
D.
Google Has Not Shown that Oracle’s Patent Infringement Claims Are
Subject to the Doctrine of Unclean Hands
2
VIII. CONCLUSION
3
4
5
6
7
Dated: May 15, 2012
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
DANIEL P. MUINO
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
8
9
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OUTLINE OF ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S RULE 50(A) MOTION FOR PHASE TWO
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
pa-1528467
2
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?