Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1798
MEMORANDUM OPINION RE GOOGLES MIL NO. 6 REGARDING ORACLES DAMAGES EXPERT JAMESMALACKOWSKI by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part #1565 Motion in Limine.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 10-03561 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RE GOOGLE’S MIL NO. 6
REGARDING ORACLE’S
DAMAGES EXPERT JAMES
MALACKOWSKI
INTRODUCTION
In this copyright infringement action, the accused infringer moves to exclude portions of
18
the testimony of the copyright owner’s damages/disgorgement expert, James Malackowski.
19
The final pretrial order GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART defendant Google Inc.’s
20
motion to exclude portions of Malackowski’s testimony. Specifically, it excluded
21
Malackowski’s conclusions that Oracle was entitled to recover the entire contribution of the
22
Android platform to the revenue streams he considered, and that no further apportionment was
23
possible. It also excluded Malackowski’s lost profits analysis to the extent it relied on a
24
revenue forecast beyond 2011. Finally, it excluded certain testimony regarding Project Acadia.
25
This memorandum opinion explains the reasons for that ruling. It also imposes
26
requirements on Malackowski’s testimony regarding the causal nexus between the alleged
27
infringement and his gross revenue estimate.
28
1
2
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc., offers James Malackowski as an expert to testify
3
regarding its claim for damages due to defendant Google Inc.’s use of the declaring code and
4
structure, sequence, and organization of 37 API packages from Oracle’s copyrighted works,
5
namely Java 2 Standard Edition Version 1.4 and Version 5.0. Malackowski, who specializes in
6
the valuation of intangible assets including intellectual property, conducted two separate
7
analyses in his opening report, first addressing Oracle’s actual damages (lost profits issue) and
8
then addressing Google’s profits attributable to the infringement (disgorgement issue).
9
With regard to actual damages, Malackowski relied on a strategic forecast of growth in
licensing revenue from Java Micro Edition, an alleged derivative work of the asserted
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
copyrighted works, which Sun Microsystems, Inc. (Oracle’s predecessor), and Oracle licensed
12
for use in numerous devices, including phones. Sun created the forecast in 2007 or 2008, and it
13
included “high,” “mid,” “low,” and “strategic” forecasts of revenue growth from Java ME
14
licensing in 2009 and 2010. Malackowski adopted the “strategic” growth projection, which
15
predicted 8.3% growth over those two years. He then assumed that licensing revenue would
16
have continued to grow at that rate through 2015 but for Google’s alleged infringement and
17
compared that projection to actual revenues. He concluded, after deducting expenses, that
18
Oracle suffered $475 million in lost profits due to Google’s alleged infringement.
19
Malackowski also discussed Project Acadia, Sun’s (and later Oracle’s) unsuccessful
20
attempt to launch a full-stack Java-based mobile platform. He concluded that “Sun and later
21
Oracle’s actual losses attributable to the lost Acadia opportunity could be quite significant, and,
22
potentially best measured by the apportioned Android profits attributable to the Infringed Java
23
Copyrights” (Malackowski Rpt. ¶ 217).
24
In his disgorgement analysis, Malackowski examined four categories of Google’s
25
Android-related revenue: (i) advertising and search on Android devices, (ii) app sales,
26
(iii) digital content sales, and (iv) hardware sales. He concluded that from 2008 through the end
27
of 2015, Google earned approximately $29 billion in revenue from advertising and search on
28
Android devices, and $11.6 billion in revenue from the remaining three sources.
2
1
In his rebuttal to Google’s damages expert, Malackowski undertook a calculation of
2
Google’s costs and expenses relating to the $40.6 billion in gross revenues he addressed in his
3
opening report and opined as to the portion of the resulting profits figures attributable to the
4
accused infringement.
5
As to the gross revenue of $29 billion from advertising and search on Android devices,
6
he subtracted $6.3 billion in “traffic acquisition costs,” resulting in a gross profits calculation of
7
$22.6 billion. He then applied a “platform contribution factor” of 35.6%, which he derived as a
8
weighted average of the portion of profits that Google shared with competing mobile operating
9
systems in exchange for incorporating Google’s search and advertising services in those
platforms. Thus, he concluded $8.0 billion in advertising and search profits from Android
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
devices was properly attributable to the contribution of the overall Android platform, with the
12
balance of the gross profits attributable to other elements of the business, including Google’s
13
search engine and its advertising servers (neither of which used the accused code)
14
(Malackowski Opp. Rpt. ¶¶ 279, 280–85, Fig. 12, Exh. 7).
15
Malackowski noted that Google had “commingled” the infringing and non-infringing
16
elements of Android “in a way that makes it difficult or impossible to separate out the
17
respective contributions of each to overall profits attributable to the accused works.” Thus, he
18
stated that under the “legal theory of commingling,” it was appropriate to award Oracle the
19
entire contribution of the Android platform to the gross profits. He further opined, based on his
20
expertise in valuing intellectual property and based on his understanding of the testimony of
21
Oracle’s technical experts, that the allegedly infringing code should be viewed as a “gating
22
item,” without which neither Android nor its contribution to the gross profits could have
23
existed. Accordingly, Malackowski concluded that Oracle should reap the full $8.0 billion of
24
the platform contribution to search and advertising revenue on Android devices (less deductible
25
expenses) (id. ¶¶ 18, 272, 285).
26
With regard to Google’s other streams of revenue from Android (namely, sales of apps,
27
digital media, and hardware), Malackowski subtracted the costs of sales totaling $8.2 billion in
28
generating the revenue of $11.6 billion, resulting in a calculation of $3.4 billion in gross profits.
3
1
Google shared revenue with its partners (such as hardware manufacturers and app developers),
2
which Malackowski accounted for in his calculation of the costs of sales. Accordingly,
3
Malackowski did not apply a separate “platform contribution factor” to his calculation of profits
4
from these sources, because his subtraction of the costs of sales already isolated the contribution
5
of the platform to those revenue streams (id. ¶¶ 276–78, 286, Exh. 7.7).
6
Malackowski found, as above, that these additional sources of revenue all critically
7
depended on the allegedly infringing code, so he concluded that Oracle was entitled to disgorge
8
the full $3.4 billion of the platform contribution to profits from sales of apps, digital media, and
9
hardware (less deductible expenses) (id. ¶¶ 18, 288).
Finally, after summing the $8.0 billion in gross profits from advertising and search and
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
$3.4 billion from other revenue streams (for a total of $11.4 billion), Malackowski subtracted
12
$2.7 billion in expenses to arrive at a final calculation of $8.8 billion in profits, which he found
13
entirely attributable to Google’s alleged infringement and thus subject to disgorgement (id.
14
¶ 280, Fig. 12).
15
Below is a table summarizing Malackowski’s disgorgement calculations:
16
Advertising/Search
Revenue from
Android Devices
17
Sales of Android
Apps/Media/
Hardware
18
Gross Revenue
$29 billion
$11.6 billion
19
(Cost of Sales)
($6.3 billion)
($8.2 billion)
20
Gross Profits
$22.6 billion
$3.4 billion
21
Platform
Contribution Factor
35.6%
Included in cost of
sales
22
Gross Profits
Attributable
to Android Platform
$8.0 billion
$3.4 billion
23
24
$11.4 billion
25
Total Gross Profits
Attributable to
Android Platform
26
(Deductible Expenses)
($2.7 billion)
27
Total Net Profits from
Android Platform
$8.8 billion
28
4
1
Although Oracle proposes to offer Malackowski’s actual damages analysis as well as his
2
disgorgement analysis, at oral argument on this motion, counsel for Oracle acknowledged that
3
Malackowski’s analyses overlapped. Counsel stated that to avoid double recovery, Oracle
4
would only seek to recover the larger figure (after verdict).
5
Google moved to exclude portions of Malackowski’s testimony. The parties fully
6
briefed this motion, and the Court heard oral arguments on all motions in limine at five hearings
7
each (for a total exceeding twenty hours), with two hearings dedicated exclusively to
8
damages/disgorgement experts.
9
District courts are charged as the gatekeepers who evaluate the admissibility of expert
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ANALYSIS
opinion testimony. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999). Rule 702 of the
12
Federal Rules of Evidence permits a court to admit expert testimony that is (1) based upon
13
sufficient facts or data, (2) the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) delivered by a
14
witness who has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. The
15
admissibility of expert testimony turns on “whether expert testimony proffered in the case is
16
sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.”
17
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 591 (1993) (citation omitted). The
18
proponent of expert testimony has the burden of demonstrating its admissibility. Lust v. Merrell
19
Dow Pharms., Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996).
20
Google contends that Oracle failed to proffer sufficient evidence of a causal connection
21
between Google’s infringement and Malackowski’s $29 billion gross revenue figure for
22
disgorgement of advertising and search profits. Google further contends that Malackowski
23
offered impermissible legal opinions regarding apportionment of Google’s profits and further
24
offered an improper apportionment analysis. Finally, Google argues that Malackowski used an
25
unreliable methodology in calculating Oracle’s lost profits. Google does not dispute
26
Malackowski’s qualifications to offer any of his opinions. It only disputes the legal and factual
27
sufficiency of the bases for his opinions.
28
5
1
1.
2
Section 504(b) of Title 17 of the United States Code provides that a copyright owner is
3
entitled to recover “any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and not
4
taken into account in computing the actual damages.” This is referred to as disgorgement.
5
Section 504(b) contemplates a two-step burden-shifting analysis for determining the infringer’s
6
profits:
7
8
9
CAUSAL NEXUS.
In establishing the infringer’s profits, the copyright owner is
required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and
the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses
and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the
copyrighted work.
In cases involving indirect profits (that is, profits with an attenuated nexus to the infringement,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
rather than the direct sale of an infringing product), our court of appeals has interpreted the two-
12
step framework of Section 504(b) to require the following analysis:
13
14
1) the copyright claimant must first show a causal nexus between
the infringement and the gross revenue; and 2) once the causal
nexus is shown, the infringer bears the burden of apportioning the
profits that were not the result of infringement.
15
Polar Bear Productions, Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 711 (9th Cir. 2004) (as amended).
16
Thus, a copyright owner may not satisfy its burden under Section 504(b) by “toss[ing] up an
17
undifferentiated gross revenue number.” Ibid. Rather, it is “the duty of the copyright plaintiff to
18
establish a causal connection between the infringement and the gross revenue reasonably
19
associated with the infringement.” Id. at 715. This may be shown by “proffer[ing] some
20
evidence . . . [that] the infringement at least partially caused the profits that the infringer
21
generated as a result of the infringement.” Ibid. (quoting Mackie v. Reiser, 296 F.3d 909, 911
22
(9th Cir. 2002)).
23
In Polar Bear, the owner of the copyright in a video sought disgorgement of the
24
infringer’s profits from its use of that video in its marketing materials without the owner’s
25
permission. Specifically, the copyright owner sought to recover three categories of profits:
26
(i) sales at trade shows where the video was displayed, (ii) sales due to a promotion that
27
included a still image from the copyrighted video, and (iii) the overall enhancement of the brand
28
prestige. Our court of appeals held that the copyright owner had satisfied its burden to show a
6
1
causal nexus as to the first two categories by proffering evidence that the copyrighted work was
2
displayed prominently in trade booths and during the promotion, that purchasers would have
3
seen the copyrighted work, and that the accused infringer profited from the resulting sales.
4
Polar Bear, 384 F.3d at 712–13.
5
On the other hand, the copyright owner failed to offer evidence to support its theory the
6
infringement drove consumer enthusiasm and thereby permitted the accused infringer to
7
increase its prices and generate more revenue. The “unqualified success” of the aforementioned
8
promotions were not enough to supply the missing link. Thus, our court of appeals held the
9
copyright owner could not recover any infringer’s profits based on a theory of increased brand
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
prestige. Id. at 713–14.
In Mackie, the owner of the copyright in a sculpture sought disgorgement of the profits
12
from subscriptions to a symphony series after the symphony used an image of the sculpture in a
13
montage in a multi-page promotional brochure. The copyright owner offered no concrete
14
evidence that the accused infringement caused individuals to subscribe to the series. Absent
15
such evidence, our court of appeals noted “we can surmise virtually endless permutations to
16
account for an individual’s decision to subscribe to the Pops series, reasons that have nothing to
17
do with the artwork in question.” Indeed, even assuming some causal link to the promotional
18
brochure, there remained only “[r]ank speculation” of a link to the copyright owner’s work.
19
Mackie, 296 F.3d at 916.
20
Google argues that Oracle failed to proffer sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between
21
Google’s use of the declaring code and SSO of 37 API packages in Android and the $29 billion
22
in gross advertising and search revenues from Android devices that Malackowski offers in his
23
opening report. Thus, Google argues, Malackowski’s testimony regarding the gross revenues
24
will not aid the trier of fact in resolving any dispute of fact in the case and should therefore be
25
excluded. (Google does not challenge the admissibility of Malackowski’s testimony regarding
26
the causal nexus between the accused infringement and the $11.4 in revenue from sales of
27
Android apps, digital media, and hardware.)
28
7
1
In his rebuttal report, Malackowski assumed that Oracle will be able to establish that the
2
alleged infringement served four critical purposes in the success of Android, and he found
3
support for that assumption through his review of the reports from Oracle’s technical experts
4
and Google’s internal documents. Specifically, Malackowski assumed that Google’s use of the
5
declaring code and SSO of 37 Java API packages enabled faster development of applications
6
for the Android platform, gave Google access to the community of Java developers, increased
7
Google’s speed to market, and the lack of available alternatives. Oracle contends and
8
Malackowski assumed that these factors facilitated Android’s success and facilitated Google’s
9
control over a platform with a significant share of mobile Internet users. With that advantage,
Google could avoid sharing its advertising and search revenue with the operators of other
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
mobile platforms, and it could direct mobile Internet users to conduct searches using Google’s
12
search engine and to view advertisements delivered by Google’s services, rather than lose those
13
search and advertising opportunities to competitors like Microsoft and Apple.
14
Although the final pretrial order ruled that Malackowski could proffer the full $29
15
billion of Google’s revenue from search and advertisements on Android devices in support of
16
Oracle’s disgorgement case, this order now requires Malackowski to testify as well to the
17
“platform contribution factor” in his rebuttal report as a further condition. The $29 billion in
18
search and advertising revenue was generated in large part by technology that operates entirely
19
independent from the Android platform, namely, its search engine and its advertising servers.
20
Indeed, Google generated significant revenue from those technologies on other platforms such
21
as desktop web browsing and Apple Inc.’s iOS mobile operating system. Thus, there were
22
“virtually endless permutations to account for an individual’s decision” to conduct a Google
23
search or to visit a site that uses one of Google’s advertising services. See Mackie, 296 F.3d at
24
916. The relationship between that revenue and the availability of a rich app ecosystem on
25
Android is simply too attenuated to satisfy Oracle’s burden under Polar Bear.
26
In his rebuttal report, Malackowski offered a further analysis that, at least at this stage,
27
may meet Oracle’s burden. Specifically, Malackowski calculated a “platform contribution
28
factor,” a weighted average of the revenue that Google shared with partners in order to promote
8
revenue from advertising and search on Android devices, so increased demand for Android
3
allegedly driven by Google’s use of the declaring code and SSO from 37 Java API packages
4
enabled Google to retain the entire sum of revenue without needing to share with any partners.
5
The proffered causal connection to this reduced sum of $8.0 billion is less speculative, although
6
even if Oracle’s gross revenue proffer is limited to that figure, it remains a close call, and the
7
trier of fact will ultimately decide if the causal nexus required by Polar Bear has been met.
8
This may be revisited at the Rule 50 stage. Thus, this order holds that, in order to meet its duty
9
“to establish a causal connection between the infringement and the gross revenue reasonably
10
associated with the infringement” with regard to advertising and search revenue, Oracle must
11
For the Northern District of California
Google’s services on other platforms. Malackowski’s theory is that Google need not share
2
United States District Court
1
affirmatively elicit the entirety of Malackowski’s calculation that arrives at the platform
12
contribution factor of $8.0 billion during direct examination, though it remains Google’s burden
13
to prove its deductible expenses and to prove that the $8.0 billion is attributable to non-
14
infringing factors.
15
It is worth noting here that Malackowski’s deposition occurred after Oracle served his
16
rebuttal report (in which his platform contribution analysis appeared), so Google will suffer
17
little prejudice if Malackowski is required to offer opinions from his rebuttal report during
18
direct examination. Additionally, it is true that Malackowski’s platform contribution figure
19
accounts for Google’s traffic acquisition costs, although it is Google’s burden of proof to offer
20
evidence of its deductible expenses. This oddity is the result of Oracle’s own overreaching in
21
its proffer of gross revenues, and thus, it is appropriately borne by Oracle. (This is the only
22
aspect of Malackowski’s rebuttal report to be advanced to his initial testimony.)
23
To be clear, this order holds only that Oracle has proffered sufficient evidence of a
24
causal nexus to present its case (subject to the above limitations). Oracle must still establish a
25
causal connection as a threshold matter. To repeat, this ruling is without prejudice to a Rule 50
26
motion directed at this issue after the presentation of evidence.
27
28
9
1
2.
APPORTIONMENT.
2
If Oracle carries its burden of demonstrating “a causal connection between the
3
infringement and the gross revenue reasonably associated with the infringement,” Section
4
504(b) shifts the burden to Google to prove its deductible expenses and to show that some of the
5
profits at issue were attributable to non-infringing factors.
6
As described above, in his rebuttal report, Malackowski undertook his own calculation
7
of Google’s deductible expenses and isolated the share of the remaining profits associated with
8
the Android platform. As to advertising and search profits, he concluded that Android
9
accounted for 35.6% of the revenue for a total of $8.0 billion. (This order requires
Malackowski to advance this calculation to his initial testimony.) As to sales of apps, digital
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
media, and hardware, he concluded that the deduction of the cost of sales accounted for the
12
contribution of any non-Android factors, and thus concludes Android accounted for $3.6 billion
13
in profits from those revenue streams.
14
Malackowski then undertook an “apportionment” analysis in which he concluded that
15
zero dollars of the respective contribution of the Android platform could be attributed to any
16
factor other than the declaring code and SSO of 37 API packages from Java and thus opined
17
that Oracle should recover the full $8.8 billion in profits. In reaching this conclusion,
18
Malackowski referred to the “legal theory of commingling,” which he understood to mean that
19
“when the infringer has mixed the infringing and non-infringing attributes in a way that makes
20
it difficult or impossible to separate out the respective contributions of each to overall profits
21
attributable to the accused work” the copyright owner it entitled to recover the entire amount of
22
profits attributable to the overall work (Malackowski Opp. Rpt. ¶ 18). Malackowski further
23
concluded that the collection of Java API packages was “properly viewed as a ‘gating item’ to
24
the Android Platform” (id. Rpt. ¶ 272). That is, Malackowski concluded that the allegedly
25
infringing code was the sine qua non of Android. Thus, he apportioned 100% of the profits
26
attributable to the platform to the declaring code and SSO of 37 APIs, and opined that Oracle
27
could disgorge the full $8.8 billion.
28
10
1
Where, as here, “an infringer’s profits are not entirely due to the infringement, and the
2
evidence suggests some division which may rationally be used as a springboard it is the duty of
3
the court to make some apportionment.” Cream Records, Inc. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 754
4
F.2d 826, 828–29 (9th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). This amount need not be calculated to
5
mathematic exactness, “only a reasonable approximation” is necessary. Id. at 829 (quoting
6
Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp., 309 U.S. 390, 408 (1940)).
7
It is Google’s burden to apportion the disgorgement figure advanced by Oracle.
8
Nevertheless, to the extent Malackowski engages in the exercise of apportionment, he must
9
offer a methodology tied to the purpose of making a reasonable approximation of the profits
attributable to the allegedly infringing elements of Android. By nullifying the contribution of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
critical components such as the Linux kernel, the Dalvik virtual machine, the other core
12
libraries, and the implementing code for the 37 API packages, Malackowski will simply invite
13
the trier of fact to adopt an apportionment methodology that is contrary to the facts, and as such,
14
his apportionment analysis is inadmissible.
15
Again, it is Google’s burden to provide a method of apportionment, so Oracle need not
16
offer Malackowski’s apportionment opinion at all (except, as discussed above, that it must
17
advance his full calculation of platform contribution to advertising and search profits as his
18
initial proffer). Moreover, it may rest on Malackowski’s $8.8 billion (or even the $11.6 billion
19
before deducting general expenses) in hopes that Google fails to carry its burden of
20
demonstrating that further apportionment or expense deduction is appropriate. But Oracle may
21
not offer Malackowski’s opinion that simply ignores the numerous critical non-infringing
22
elements of Android to which some of the profits should be apportioned and thus eviscerates the
23
duty to apportion where the evidence plainly shows that the profits are partially attributable to
24
non-infringing elements. That would risk the “certainly unjust course of giving the plaintiffs
25
everything . . . .” Cream Records, 754 F.2d at 829 (citation omitted).
26
To be clear, Malackowski’s calculation of the “platform contribution factor” from
27
advertising and sales must be advanced to his direct examination; however, as a procedural
28
matter, this order holds that Oracle must present Malackowski’s specific critiques of Google’s
11
1
own apportionment methodology and expense deductions (as well as his own further expense
2
deductions) after Google has offered its apportionment analysis. (Yes, this means Malackowski
3
will have to appear twice.) This arrangement will assist in comprehending the evidence within
4
the framework of the burden-shifting analysis.
5
3.
LOST PROFITS.
6
Google also contends that Malackowski’s calculations of Oracle’s lost licensing revenue
7
from Java ME, an alleged derivative work of the copyrighted works, is too speculative.
8
Malackowski opined that Oracle lost profits totaling $475 million due to Google’s use of the
9
declaring code and SSO of 37 API packages in Android. Google contends that Oracle has
failed to establish the “necessary, immediate and direct causal connection” between Google’s
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
alleged infringement and Google’s diminished revenue. Google further contends that even if
12
the requisite causal connection can be established, Malackowski’s calculation of the lost profits
13
is based on an unreliable forecast made by Sun.
14
As to the causal connection, a reasonable jury could find a direct causal connection
15
between Google’s alleged infringement and Oracle’s loss of licensing revenues from Java ME.
16
Malackowski details several licensing deals that fell through or were renewed at a substantially
17
lower value, and he notes that many of Oracle’s former, current, and prospective partners
18
subsequently released products that implemented Android.
19
Malackowski’s calculation of the lost profits suffers from several serious flaws and must
20
therefore be limited. As above, this holding is without prejudice to a Rule 50 motion after the
21
evidence has been presented.
22
Malackowski did not calculate lost profits based on the value of the actual deals that fell
23
through or that suffered from significant pricing pressure. Rather, Malackowski calculated lost
24
profits based on a forecast of licensing revenue for Java ME that Sun produced in 2007–08.
25
The “strategic” component of the forecast projected licensing revenue growth of 8.3% from
26
2009 through 2010, and Malackowski assumed that absent the infringement Oracle would have
27
realized the same rate of growth in its licensing revenues through 2015 — five years beyond the
28
12
1
scope of the projection. He calculated the difference between the projected growth and actual
2
results (after the deduction of expenses) as $475 million.
3
Malackowski supposedly vetted the projection by discussing it with Oracle personnel
4
knowledgeable about Sun’s business strategy at the time of the forecast, by comparing it to
5
actual licensing revenues from previous years, and by considering another (more optimistic)
6
forecast made later in the year (Malackowski Rpt. ¶¶ 189, 196–97). Malackowski did not,
7
however, perform any analysis regarding whether Oracle underperformed relative to the
8
forecast due to market shifts or events unrelated to Google’s alleged infringement. Nor did he
9
offer any analysis to support extending the growth projections five years beyond the end of the
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
forecast.
A prior order held that Oracle could offer expert testimony that extended the projected
12
growth through 2011 and that Google could test the propriety of conclusions based on the
13
forecast through cross-examination (Dkt. No. 685 at 5–7). This order holds that the forecast
14
may be used to that extent, but it cannot be used to project revenue growth any further out than
15
2011 because Malackowski offered no analysis regarding whether the forecast (which did not
16
itself purport to project so far into the future) would be a reliable basis for making such
17
projections despite changes in market conditions, inter alia. Accordingly, Malackowski may
18
offer conclusions about the amount of Oracle’s alleged lost profits only through 2011. He may
19
note that his calculation omits four years of the damages period, but he may not opine that it
20
would be proper for the jury to assume that same rate of growth through 2015.
21
Google also moved to exclude Malackowski’s conclusion that the actual damages
22
attributable to the failure of Project Acadia is “potentially best measured by the apportioned
23
Android profits attributable to” the alleged infringement, because Malackowski failed to
24
evaluate whether Acadia could have been as successful and profitable as Android but for the
25
alleged infringement. Oracle responds that Malackowski did not an attempt to quantify the lost
26
Acadia opportunity, he merely sought to explain why his lost profits calculation was
27
conservative.
28
Malackowski may offer testimony that his lost profits calculation did not account for the
profits Oracle could have realized from Project Acadia, but he may not in any way suggest that
13
1
the proper measurement of those lost profits should be based on Google’s apportioned profits.
2
Such testimony would invite the jury to expand the scope of its lost-profits finding beyond that
3
which can be supported by the evidence.
4
5
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Google’s motion to exclude Malackowski’s testimony is
6
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Oracle may present its causal nexus case, however, it
7
must also affirmatively elicit Malackowski’s calculation of the platform contribution to
8
advertising and search profits (resulting in an initial proffer of $8.0 billion). The viability of
9
Oracle’s causal nexus case also remains subject to a Rule 50 motion after the evidence.
Malackowski may not offer his opinion that no further apportionment of the platform
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
contribution in any category of revenues is possible or appropriate. Malackowski may not rely
12
on the Sun 2007–08 forecast to calculate Oracle’s lost profits beyond 2011, and he must adjust
13
his totals to reflect that limitation. Finally, Malackowski may not offer testimony that Oracle’s
14
lost profits from the failure of Project Acadia can be measured in any way based on Google’s
15
profits attributable to the alleged infringement.
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: May 3, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
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?