Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1929
MEMORANDUM OPINION RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE CONCERNING RULE 706 EXPERT. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/20/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/20/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
12
13
No. C 10-03561 WHA
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
MEMORANDUM OPINION
RE MOTIONS IN LIMINE
CONCERNING RULE 706
EXPERT
Defendant.
14
/
15
In this copyright infringement action, both sides moved to exclude portions of the
16
17
testimony of the court-appointed damages expert, Professor James Kearl. The final pretrial
18
order excluded Kearl’s disgorgement analysis to the extent it relied on non-infringing
19
alternatives (including his “no-Android” scenario). Similarly, it held that Kearl could not offer
20
testimony that relies on the econometric model of Min Jung Kim, which was constructed based
21
on data that could not be tested by any expert in this case. The reasoning for those rulings is
22
explained in the memorandum opinion relating to Oracle’s motions directed at Leonard (Dkt.
23
No. 1784).*
The final pretrial order also denied Oracle’s motion regarding traffic acquisition costs.
24
25
This memorandum opinion explains the reasoning for that ruling.
*
26
*
*
27
*
28
This memorandum opinion need not address Google's objections regarding Kearl’s reliance on the
conjoint analysis performed by Dr. Steven Shugan, which was stricken as unreliable before the first trial,
inasmuch as it is part of Kearl’s inadmissible non-infringing alternatives analysis. Similarly, it need not address
Google’s objections to Kearl’s adjustments to the Kim model, inasmuch as the Kim model has been excluded
altogether.
1
The parties dispute Google’s accounting practices regarding its traffic acquisition costs
2
related to advertising revenue from searches conducted on Android devices from 2011 through
3
2015. Google contends that beginning in 2011, it reported Android search TAC as part of its
4
company-wide search TAC and ceased reporting it on profit and loss statements specific to
5
Android. Oracle contends that Google also reported Android-related TAC as part of its line-
6
item for the cost of app and digital media sales on its Android profit and loss statements.
7
In calculating Google’s deductible expenses, Google’s damages expert Dr. Gregory
8
Leonard deducted an estimate of the proportion of search TAC from company-wide totals
9
attributable to Android as well as the cost of app and digital media sales. Oracle’s damages
expert, James Malackowski, responded that Leonard double-counted search TAC. Kearl opined
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
that Malackowski appeared to have been mistaken but acknowledged that this was a factual
12
dispute properly left to the jury. Kearl adopted Leonard’s methodology, but noted that he
13
would adjust if Malackowski’s understanding of Google’s accounting proved correct (Kearl
14
Rpt. ¶ 28).
15
Oracle seeks to exclude Kearl’s TAC opinions because he resolved ambiguity in
16
Google’s favor, although ambiguity regarding deductible costs should be resolved in Oracle’s
17
favor. See Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., 886 F.2d 1545, 1549 (9th Cir.
18
1989). In his response to Oracle’s motion, Kearl reiterated that he viewed the disputed
19
accounting practices as a factual issue for the jury to resolve, and thus, he would provide a
20
damages estimate consistent with the resolution of the parties’ factual dispute.
21
The jury will be instructed regarding the burdens of proof relating to deductible
22
expenses, but it will not resolve the factual dispute before Kearl testifies. Nevertheless,
23
Oracle’s factual challenge to Kearl’s assumptions is not a basis for the exclusion of his
24
conclusions, rather, it is proper material for cross-examination and jury argument. For this
25
reason, the final pretrial order DENIED Oracle’s motion to exclude Kearl’s analysis of TAC.
26
27
Dated: May 20, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
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?