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 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?