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)
[e-mail]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[e-mail]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[e-mail]
755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[e-mail]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[e-mail]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[e-mail]
500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
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