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 35
PAGES 1 - 16
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE HONORABLE WILLIAM ALSUP
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
)
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
VS.
) NO. C 10-03561 WHA
)
GOGGLE, INC.,
)
) SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
DEFENDANT.
) WEDNESDAY
) FEBRUARY 9, 2011
___________________________________) 11:00 O'CLOCK A.M.
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
APPEARANCES:
FOR PLAINTIFF:
BY:
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
755 PAGE MILL ROAD
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94304-1018
RICHARD S. BALLINGER, ESQUIRE
ROMAN A. SWOOPES, ESQUIRE
MARC DAVID PETERS, PH.D., PARTNER
MICHAEL A. JACOBS, PARTNER
DIANE C. GABL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
650-251-3974
AND
ANDREW C. TEMKIN, CORPORATE COUNSEL
500 ORACLE PARKWAY
M/S 50P7
REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA 94065
FURTHER APPEARANCES ON NEXT PAGE.
KATHERINE WYATT, OFFICIAL REPORTER, RPR, RMR
925-212-5224
4
1
YOU GETTING US IN THE ROOM TOGETHER WAS PRODUCTIVE.
2
THE COURT:
3
MR. JACOBS:
WELL, THEN, LET'S HEAR THE AGREEMENT.
THE AGREEMENT IS THAT BY FEBRUARY 18TH
4
BOTH SIDES WILL FURTHER SUPPLEMENT THEIR INFRINGEMENT
5
CONTENTIONS AND NONINFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
6
CONCERN THE OTHER SIDE RAISED.
7
TO GO DOWN A LEVEL OF DETAIL, WE HAVE EXPRESSED A
8
CONCERN WITH THE LEVEL OF TECHNICAL DETAIL IN GOGGLE'S
9
NONINFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS.
WHY IS THIS LIMITATION NOT PRESENT
10
IN THE SOURCE CODE WHERE IN THE INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS WE'VE
11
DELINEATED THE SOURCE CODE WHERE THAT LIMITATION CAN BE FOUND?
12
GOGGLE HAS AGREED TO GIVE IT THEIR BEST CURRENT SHOT
13
AT ARTICULATING WHY THAT LIMITATION IS NOT PRESENT IN THAT CODE
14
ITSELF, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THAT CODE IS OPERATING ON THE
15
HANDSETS.
16
RECIPROCALLY GOOGLE EXPRESSED A CONCERN THAT WE HAD
17
NOT ARTICULATED SUFFICIENTLY THE BASIS FOR OUR BELIEF THAT THE
18
GOOGLE -- THAT THE ANDROID CODE THAT IS ON THE GOOGLE PUBLIC
19
ANDROID WEBSITE IS, IN FACT, THE CODE THAT IS PRESENT ON THE
20
HANDSETS THAT WOULD REPRESENT THE DIRECT INFRINGEMENT IN CASES
21
OF INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT.
22
SO BY FEBRUARY 18TH, WE WILL BOTH BE SUPPLEMENTING
23
AND GIVING IT OUR BEST CURRENT SHOT WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER
24
SIDE'S CONCERNS.
25
WE FURTHER AGREED THAT WE WILL DO ANOTHER UPDATE OF
KATHERINE WYATT, OFFICIAL REPORTER, RPR, RMR
925-212-5224
5
1
OUR CONTENTIONS AMPLIFYING ON EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED
2
IN THE INTERIM ON APRIL 1ST.
3
SO I THINK WE'RE BOTH SATISFIED THAT WE'VE MADE A LOT
4
OF PROGRESS HERE, AT LEAST, AND DON'T NEED THE COURT'S
5
INTERVENTION AT THIS TIME ON THAT, ON THE ISSUE OF OUR
6
INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND THEIR NONINFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS.
7
THE COURT:
8
MR. WEINGAERTNER:
9
THE COURT:
10
MAKING THAT AGREEMENT.
SO PROPERLY STATED?
YES, YOUR HONOR.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, GOOD.
THANK YOU FOR
I APPRECIATE IT.
11
IS THERE ANYTHING MORE I CAN DO FOR YOU TODAY?
12
MR. JACOBS:
WE HAD FURTHER BRIEFED CONCERNS WITH
13
EACH OTHER'S INTERROGATORY RESPONSES. WE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO
14
DISCUSS TWO OF THOSE, ONE IMPORTANT ONE, ONE THAT WAS IMPORTANT
15
TO EACH SIDE.
16
THAT WE DON'T THINK WE NEED THE COURT'S INTERVENTION ON
17
INTERROGATORIES AT THIS TIME.
18
AND WE MADE ENOUGH PROGRESS IN RESOLVING THOSE
WE BOTH AGREED THAT WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO BE DOING
19
IS ENGAGING BETTER WITH EACH OTHER IN ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE
20
THESE DISAGREEMENTS AND EXPLAINING WHAT IS REALLY BOTHERING THE
21
OTHER SIDE AND NOT ASKING THE COURT TO CALL THESE BALLS AND
22
STRIKES AT THIS POINT.
23
THE COURT:
24
MR. WEINGAERTNER:
25
AGREED?
YES, YOUR HONOR.
WE'RE IN
AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
KATHERINE WYATT, OFFICIAL REPORTER, RPR, RMR
925-212-5224
17
1
2
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
I, KATHERINE WYATT, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY CERTIFY
3
THAT THE FOREGOING PROCEEDINGS WERE REPORTED BY ME, A CERTIFIED
4
SHORTHAND REPORTER, AND WERE THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED BY ME INTO
5
TYPEWRITING; THAT THE FOREGOING IS A FULL, COMPLETE AND TRUE
6
RECORD OF SAID PROCEEDINGS.
7
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NOT OF COUNSEL OR
8
ATTORNEY FOR EITHER OR ANY OF THE PARTIES IN THE FOREGOING
9
PROCEEDINGS AND CAPTION NAMED, OR IN ANY WAY INTERESTED IN THE
10
11
OUTCOME OF THE CAUSE NAMED IN SAID CAPTION.
THE FEE CHARGED AND THE PAGE FORMAT FOR THE
12
TRANSCRIPT CONFORM TO THE REGULATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL
13
CONFERENCE.
14
15
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND THIS
10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011.
16
17
18
19
20
__________________________________
/S/ KATHERINE WYATT
21
22
23
24
25
KATHERINE WYATT, OFFICIAL REPORTER, RPR, RMR
925-212-5224
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?