Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 1211

FINAL JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 20, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

No. C 10-03561 WHA

v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

FINAL JUDGMENT
/

15
16

The pleadings in this action asserted the following: Oracle asserted infringement of

17

seven patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476; 5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104;

18

6,910,205; and 6,061,520. Oracle further asserted infringement of its copyrights in the code,

19

documentation, specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the Java platform.

20

Oracle alleged that the infringed elements included Java method and class names, definitions,

21

organization, and parameters; the structure, organization and content of Java class libraries; and

22

the content and organization of Java’s documentation. In turn, Google asserted declaratory

23

judgments of non-infringement and invalidity, and equitable defenses. Before trial, Oracle

24

dismissed with prejudice all claims for relief based on the ’447, ’476, ’702, ’720, and ’205

25

patents. During trial, Google abandoned claims for relief for invalidity declarations as to the

26

’104 and ’520 patents.

27
28

1
2
3

Based upon the verdicts by the jury and orders entered by the Court, it is now
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that:
With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief and Google’s counterclaim for declaratory
judgment of non-infringement for the ’520 and ’104 patents, judgment is entered for Google

5

and against Oracle. With respect to Google’s counterclaims for declaratory judgment of

6

invalidity for the ’520 and ’104 patents, judgment is entered for Oracle and against Google,

7

such counterclaims having been abandoned during trial. With respect to the five remaining

8

patents, claims for relief by Oracle were completely dismissed with prejudice by Oracle (and

9

may not be resurrected except as indicated in the orders of May 3, 2011, and March 2, 2012,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

with respect to new products). In this regard, it is the intent of this judgment and order that

11

general principles of merger of claims into the judgment and res judicata shall be applicable.

12

With respect to Oracle’s claim for relief for copyright infringement, judgment is entered

13

in favor of Google and against Oracle except as follows: the rangeCheck code in TimSort.java

14

and ComparableTimSort.java, and the eight decompiled files (seven “Impl.java” files and one

15

“ACL” file), as to which judgment for Oracle and against Google is entered in the amount of

16

zero dollars (as per the parties’ stipulation).

17

With respect to Google’s equitable defenses, judgment is entered for Oracle and against

18

Google as to waiver and implied license. As to equitable estoppel and laches, no ruling need be

19

made due to mootness.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: June 20, 2012.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2