Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1209

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Oracle America, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Exhibit)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/18/2012)

EXHIBIT A
ORACLE’S PROPOSED FINAL JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

10

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

GOOGLE INC.

14

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
FINAL JUDGMENT
Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

Defendant.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
sf- 3158625

1

WHEREAS a jury trial was held in this matter from April 16 to May 23, 2012;

2

WHEREAS a partial jury verdict was rendered on May 7, 2012, on Oracle’s copyright

3

infringement claim, finding that (1) Google infringed the structure, sequence, and organization of

4

the accused 37 Java API packages, but failing to reach a verdict on whether the use constituted

5

“fair use”; (2) Google did not infringe as to the documentation for the accused 37 Java API

6

packages; (3) Google did infringe as to the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and

7

ComparableTimSort.java; (4) Google did not infringe as to the eight decompiled files (seven

8

“Impl.java” files and one “ACL” file); and (5) Google did not infringe as to the English-language

9

comments in CodeSourceTest.java and CollectionCertStoreParametersTest.java;

10
11
12
13
14

WHEREAS, on May 11, 2012, the Court granted Oracle’s motion for judgment of
copyright infringement as to the eight decompiled files;
WHEREAS a jury verdict was rendered on May 23, 2012, on Oracle’s patent infringement
claims, finding that Google did not infringe U.S. Patents RE38,104 and 6,061,520;
WHEREAS, on May 31, 2012, the Court dismissed Oracle’s claim for copyright

15

infringement as to the structure, sequence, and organization of the accused 37 Java API packages;

16

WHEREAS, on May 31, 2012, the Court, sitting as the trier-of-fact, rejected on the merits

17

Google’s affirmative defenses of implied license and waiver, for both copyright and patent

18

infringement, and denied Google’s equitable estoppel and laches defenses as moot;

19
20

WHEREAS Google voluntarily withdrew its invalidity defenses to the ’104 and ’520
patents; and

21

WHEREAS Oracle voluntarily withdrew its claims for infringement of U.S. Patents

22

6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; and 6,910,205; under the terms set forth by the

23

Court in its orders of May 3, 2011 and March 2, 2012, specifying that “Oracle may not renew

24

those infringement claims in a subsequent action except as to new products”;

25
26
27
28
FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
sf- 3158625

2

1

Therefore, good cause appearing, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:

2

1.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Oracle’s Claim for Infringement of the ’447 Patent (Count I) is voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice.1
2.

Oracle’s Claim for Infringement of the ’476 Patent (Count II) is voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice.
3.

Oracle’s Claim for Infringement of the ’702 Patent (Count III) is voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice.
4.

Oracle’s Claim for Infringement of the ’720 Patent (Count IV) is voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice.
5.

On Oracle’s Claim for Infringement of the ’104 Patent (Count V), judgment is

entered in favor of Google, pursuant to the jury’s May 23, 2012 verdict of non-infringement.
6.

Oracle’s Claim for Infringement of the ’205 Patent (Count VI) is voluntarily

dismissed with prejudice.
7.

On Oracle’s Claim for Infringement of the ’520 Patent (Count VII), judgment is

entered in favor of Google, pursuant to the jury’s May 23, 2012 verdict of non-infringement.
8.

On Oracle’s Claim for Copyright Infringement (Count VIII) as to the

17

documentation for the accused 37 Java API packages, judgment is entered in favor of Google,

18

pursuant to the jury’s May 7, 2012 verdict of non-infringement.

19

9.

On Oracle’s Claim for Copyright Infringement (Count VIII) as to the rangeCheck

20

code in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.java, judgment is entered in favor of Oracle,

21

pursuant to the jury’s May 7, 2012 verdict of infringement. Statutory damages for Google’s

22

infringement as to the rangeCheck code are set in the amount of $____.

23
24

10.

On Oracle’s Claim for Copyright Infringement (Count VIII) as to the English-

language comments in CodeSourceTest.java and CollectionCertStoreParametersTest.java,

25
26
27

1

All patent infringement claims that are voluntarily dismissed under this Judgment are
dismissed with prejudice except as to new products that Google may introduce after the date of
this Judgment, pursuant to the terms of the Court’s May 3, 2011 and March 2, 2012 orders.

28
FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
sf- 3158625

3

1

judgment is entered in favor of Google, pursuant to the jury’s May 7, 2012 verdict of non-

2

infringement.

3

11.

On Oracle’s Claim for Copyright Infringement (Count VIII) as to the eight

4

decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one “ACL” file), judgment is entered in favor of

5

Oracle, pursuant to the Court’s order of May 11, 2012. Statutory damages for Google’s

6

infringement as to the eight decompiled files are set in the amount of $____.

7

12.

Oracle’s Claim for Copyright Infringement (Count VIII) as to the structure,

8

sequence, and organization of the accused 37 Java API packages is dismissed with prejudice,

9

pursuant to the Court’s order of May 31, 2012.

10
11

13.

Google’s affirmative defenses of invalidity of the ’104 and ’520 Patents are

voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

12

14.

Google’s affirmative defenses of implied license and waiver, for both copyright

13

and patent infringement, are dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the Court’s May 31, 2012

14

order.

15

15.

On Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

16

’104 Patent (Count One), judgment is entered in favor of Google, pursuant to the jury’s May 23,

17

2012 verdict of non-infringement. The Court declares that Google has not infringed and does not

18

infringe the ’104 Patent.

19
20

16.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’104 Patent

(Count Two) is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

21

17.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’702

22

Patent (Count Three) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its

23

infringement claim.

24

18.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’702 Patent

25

(Count Four) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its infringement

26

claim.

27
28

19.

On Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

’520 Patent (Count Five), judgment is entered in favor of Google, pursuant to the jury’s May 23,
FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
sf- 3158625

4

1

2012 verdict of non-infringement. The Court declares that Google has not infringed and does not

2

infringe the ’520 Patent.

3
4

20.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’520 Patent

(Count Six) is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.

5

21.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’447

6

Patent (Count Seven) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its

7

infringement claim.

8

22.

9
10

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’447 Patent

(Count Eight) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its infringement
claim.

11

23.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’476

12

Patent (Count Nine) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its

13

infringement claim.

14

24.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’476 Patent

15

(Count Ten) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its infringement

16

claim.

17

25.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’205

18

Patent (Count Eleven) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its

19

infringement claim.

20

26.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’205 Patent

21

(Count Twelve) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its infringement

22

claim.

23

27.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’720

24

Patent (Count Thirteen) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its

25

infringement claim.

26

28.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ’720 Patent

27

(Count Fourteen) is dismissed as moot in light of Oracle’s voluntary dismissal of its infringement

28

claim.
FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
sf- 3158625

5

1

29.

On Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

2

Asserted Copyrights (Count Fifteen) as to the documentation for the accused 37 Java API

3

packages, judgment is entered in favor of Google, pursuant to the jury’s May 7, 2012 verdict of

4

non-infringement. The Court declares that Google has not infringed and does not infringe

5

Oracle’s copyrights as to the documentation for the accused 37 Java API packages.

6

30.

On Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

7

Asserted Copyrights (Count Fifteen) as to the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java and

8

ComparableTimSort.java, judgment is entered in favor of Oracle, pursuant to the jury’s May 7,

9

2012 verdict of infringement.

10

31.

On Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

11

Asserted Copyrights (Count Fifteen) as to the English-language comments in

12

CodeSourceTest.java and CollectionCertStoreParametersTest.java, judgment is entered in favor

13

of Google, pursuant to the jury’s May 7, 2012 verdict of non-infringement. The Court declares

14

that Google has not infringed and does not infringe Oracle’s copyrights as to the English-

15

language comments in CodeSourceTest.java and CollectionCertStoreParametersTest.java.

16

32.

On Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

17

Asserted Copyrights (Count Fifteen) as to the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and

18

one “ACL” file), judgment is entered in favor of Oracle, pursuant to the jury’s May 7, 2012

19

verdict of non-infringement.

20

33.

Google’s Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the

21

Asserted Copyrights (Count Fifteen) as to the structure, sequence, and organization of the accused

22

37 Java API packages is dismissed as moot in light of the Court’s dismissal with prejudice of

23

Oracle’s infringement claim.

24
25
26
27
28
FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
sf- 3158625

6

1

DATED this ___ day of June, 2012.

BY THE COURT:

2
3

By:

4

Hon. William H. Alsup
United States District Court Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
FINAL JUDGMENT
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
sf- 3158625

7