Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 486

ORDER DENYING PRECIS REQUEST re #479 Letter filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 5, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011)

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

No. C 10-03561 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING
PRÉCIS REQUEST

GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/

15
16

Oracle America, Inc. “request[s] leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the

17

‘Section 1 — Accused Products’ portion of the Court’s Order partially granting Google’s motion

18

to strike portions of Prof. Mitchell’s report (Dkt. No. 464), or in the alternative, to supplement

19

Oracle’s infringement contentions as to accused products” (Dkt. No. 479). Google Inc. opposes

20

this request (Dkt. No. 485). It is DENIED.

21

First, Oracle has not shown good cause for reconsideration. Civil Local Rule 7-9

22

enumerates three permissible grounds for reconsideration, including “[t]he emergence of new

23

material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order” (emphasis added).

24

Oracle “submits that new material law exists in that the Court’s ruling does not distinguish

25

between the infringement contention requirements for a party’s infringement and for indirect

26

infringement” (Dkt. No. 479 at 1). Oracle, however, identifies no new law that emerged after the

27

order issued on September 26, 2011. Oracle acknowledges that the applicable version of the

28

Patent Local Rules went into effect in December 2009, and Oracle cites no new decision

1

interpreting those rules. Instead, Oracle simply offers its own interpretation of the Patent Local

2

Rules, arguing that the disclosure requirements are more lax for allegations of indirect versus

3

direct infringement. Oracle could have, but did not, make this argument in opposition to

4

Google’s motion to strike. A new, untimely argument by the losing party is not a permissible

5

ground for reconsideration.

6

Second, Oracle will not be allowed to amend its infringement contentions on the eve of

7

trial. As recounted in the September 26 order, Oracle was warned that it would not be given late

8

opportunities to cure defects in its disclosures. Patent Local Rule 3-6 allows amendment of

9

infringement contentions only “upon a timely showing of good cause” (emphasis added). The
time for amending infringement contentions has long passed.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: October 5, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2