Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 497

Declaration of DANIEL PURCELL in Support of #496 MOTION in Limine No. 5, #494 MOTION in Limine No. 3, #492 MOTION in Limine No. 1, #493 MOTION in Limine NO. 2, #495 MOTION in Limine No. 4 filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27, #28 Exhibit 28, #29 Exhibit 29, #30 Exhibit 30, #31 Exhibit 31, #32 Exhibit 32, #33 Exhibit 33, #34 Exhibit 34, #35 Exhibit 35, #36 Exhibit 36, #37 Exhibit 37, #38 Exhibit 38, #39 Exhibit 39, #40 Exhibit 40)(Related document(s) #496 , #494 , #492 , #493 , #495 ) (Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

EXHIBIT 24

Oracle America v. Google - Expert Report of Iain Cockburn – September 12, 2011 - Subject to Protective Order
(Contains Confidential and Highly Confidential/Attorneys' Eyes Only Material)
Updated as of September 15, 2011
Exhibit 7
Apportionment Assessment of Patent '205
Hybrid code execution
Patent Functionality
• The ’205 patent invention is related to Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation in an environment that
can both interpret bytecode or execute corresponding native instructions.
• The ’205 patent provides a way to improve execution speed selectively using native code
instead of interpreted bytecode (inlining).

Contemporaneous Evidence
• "Up until Android 2.2 (Froyo) the JVM (really a Dalvik JVM for licensing reasons) on the
Android platform was playing with one hand tied behind its back.”
• "Ran them all through Linpack, and the numbers hold up. We're seeing scores on Android 2.2
that are 600 percent or so higher than on Android 2.1.”
• "We added a Just In Time (JIT) compiler to the Dalvik VM. The JIT is a software component
which takes application code, analyzes it, and actively translates it into a form that runs faster,
doing so while the application continues to run. … On the performance front in particular, we
have seen realistic improvements of 2x to 5x for CPU-bound code, compared to the previous
version of the Dalvik VM. This is equivalent to about 4x to 10x faster than a more traditional
interpreter implementation."
• Regarding the JIT, Qualcomm noted that “[t]he performance improvement up to 5x is quite
exciting.”

Benchmarking Evidence
• Vandette report performance benchmark testing shows as much as 3.3 times execution speed
improvement.
• Linpack testing shows a five fold increase when enabling the '205 patent. This test reflects the
performance of the Android Dalvik Virtual Machine. Since applications run on this virtual
machine, it is also a measure of application performance.
• The benchmarking generated to date does not quantify the impact of the inlining claim on
performance.

Econometric Analysis
• Willingness to pay analysis provides evidence that consumers value performance features
enabled by patents '104 and '205 as measured by Linpack.
• Speed improvement driven by patent '104 and '205 is associated with an average $31-$37
increase in consumer's willingness to pay for handsets.
• Consumers are less likely to purchase handsets with lower performance.
• Analysis suggests patent apportionment in the range of 30% - 40%.

Conjoint Analysis
• Analysis suggests that consumers value faster phones.
• The '205 patent does not improve application launch times by itself.

Opinion
• 25% apportionment
• Estimated patent damages after U.S. adjustment: $168.2 million

[1]
[2]

[3]
[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

[14]
[15]

Oracle America v. Google - Expert Report of Iain Cockburn – September 12, 2011 - Subject to Protective Order
(Contains Confidential and Highly Confidential/Attorneys' Eyes Only Material)
Exhibit 7 (continued)
Apportionment Assessment of Patent '205
Hybrid code execution
Sources:
[1] Mitchell Patent Report, p. 32.
[2] Mitchell Patent Report, p. 39.
[3] See, e.g., http://developer.android.com/sdk/android-2.2-highlights.html
(advertising, for Android 2.2 Platform Highlights, “Improved performance,”
including 2x-5x performance speedup for CPU-heavy code over Android 2.1 with
Dalvik JIT); http://www.javarants.com/2010/05/26/android-dalvik-vmperformance-is-a-threat-to-the-iphone/
[4] http://www.androidcentral.com/benchmarking-android-22-froyo-against-android21-eclair (Benchmarking Android 2.2 (Froyo) and the JIT against Android 2.1
(Éclair)
[5] "Dalvik JIT," Android Developers Blog, May 25, 2010, accessed at http://androiddevelopers.blogspot.com/2010/05/dalvik-jit.html
[6] GOOGLE-61-00012446 (e-mail thread from April 20, 2009, between Qualcomm
employees and Google employees.
[7] Vandette Report, p. 24.
[8] Exhibit 3
[9] See Vandette Report; See Vandette Report ¶ 61-62
[10] See Appendix C.
[11] See Appendix C.
[12] See Appendix C.
[13] See Appendix C.
[14] See Shugan report.
[15] Exhibit 4