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 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?