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)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ORACLE AMERICA, INC. Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE INC. Defendant. OPENING EXPERT REPORT OF JOHN C. MITCHELL REGARDING PATENT INFRINGEMENT SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF ORACLE AMERICA, INC. CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER Highly Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only pa-1460906 194. Individually and collectively, the terms of these agreements (which I understand that Google has with every major Android device manufacturer) mean that Google exerts significant control over Android devices made and sold by others and what software they run. Google provides infringing code to device manufacturers, discourages or prevents any changes to Android with respect to the infringing functionality, and could change the Android software running on devices made by others to avoid infringement if its chose. For these reasons, I conclude that Google induces and contributes to infringement by the entities that make, use, and sell Android devices, such as device manufacturers, carriers, application developers, and end users. E. 195. Experimental Work Appendix A discuses the experimental work I performed to confirm infringement of the patents-in-suit, in supplementing the analysis detailed below. Appendix A is an integral part of my report, and discusses my study of the following Android devices to confirm infringement in support of my analysis: • Nexus One; • Nexus S; • HTC’s Droid Incredible 2; • LG Optimus; • Samsung Captivate; and • Motorola Atrix. 196. In support of my analysis and rendered opinions, I also rely on the performance benchmark and testing analysis completed by Bob Vandette, Noel Poore, and Erez Landau, as detailed in their respective summaries and reports submitted to Google with my Opening Patent Infringement Report. Their work was conducted at my request and direction. I engaged in numerous conversations with these Java engineers in carrying out this work. 66 pa-1460906 XIII. CONCLUSION 767. For the foregoing reasons, it is my opinion that Android infringes: • Claims 11, 12, 15, 17, 22, 27, 29, 38, 39, 40, and 41 of United States Patent No. RE38,104; • Claims 1, 2, 3, and 8 of United States Patent No. 6,910,205; • Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 16 of United States Patent No. 5,966,702; • Claims 1, 4, 8, 12, 14, and 20 of United States Patent No. 6,061,520; • Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 19, 21, and 22 of United States Patent No. 7,426,720; • Claims 10 and 11 of United States Patent No. 6,125,447; and • Claims 13, 14, and 15 of United States Patent No. 6,192,476 It is also my opinion that Google is liable for direct and indirect infringement in the manner described above. 768. For the forgoing reasons, it is my opinion that the patents-in-suit form the basis for consumer demand for Android by developers and end-users. 769. For the forgoing reasons, it is my opinion that once Google decided to adopt the Java execution model in Android, the patents-in-suit became necessary to Android achieving satisfactory performance and security. Dated: August 8, 2011 John C. Mitchell 384 pa-1460906

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?