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 37
1
2
3
4
5
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
mdpeters@mofo.com
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
dmuino@mofo.com
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792
6
7
8
9
10
11
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
dboies@bsfllp.com
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
sholtzman@bsfllp.com
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
dorian.daley@oracle.com
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
deborah.miller@oracle.com
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com
500 Oracle Parkway
Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
19
20
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
21
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
22
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
23
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
24
Plaintiff,
25
v.
26
GOOGLE, INC.
27
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
ORACLE’S SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL PATENT LOCAL RULE
3-1 DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED
CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT
CONTENTIONS
Defendant.
28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177
•
1
2
Claims 1-24 of United States Patent No. 6,125,447 (“the ’447 patent”)
(infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit D);
•
3
4
Claims 1-21 of United States Patent No. 6,192,476 (“the ’476 patent”)
(infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit E);
•
5
6
Claims 1-4 and 6-23 of United States Patent No. 6,061,520 (“the ’520 patent”)
(infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit F); and
•
7
8
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-22 of United States Patent No. 7,426,720 (“the ’720
patent”) (infringement claim chart attached as Exhibit G).
9
B.
Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) — Accused Instrumentalities.
10
Based on Oracle’s investigation thus far, Oracle accuses the following Accused
11
Instrumentalities of infringing the asserted claims specified above in the manner described in
12
Exhibits A-G: (i) “Android” or “the Android Platform”;2 (ii) Google devices running Android;
13
and (iii) other mobile devices running Android. Representative examples of Google devices
14
running Android include the Google Dev Phones, the Google Nexus One, and the Google Nexus
15
S.3 Representative examples of other mobile devices running Android include HTC’s EVO 4G,
16
HTC’s Droid Incredible, HTC’s G2, Motorola’s Droid, and Samsung’s Captivate. Android
17
applications, including those written by Google, when built or run will necessarily use the
18
infringing functionality in the manner described in Exhibits A-G. For example, application
19
developers like Google use the Google-provided dx tool from the Android SDK to convert .class
20
2
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
“Android” or “the Android Platform” means “Android” as referred to in Google’s Answer
(Docket No. 32) at Background ¶ 12 and in Google’s Answer to Amended Complaint (Docket
No. 51) at Background ¶ 12 and at Factual Background ¶¶ 11-17, and includes any versions
thereof (whether released or unreleased) and related public or proprietary source code, executable
code, and documentation.
3
See, e.g., JR Raphael, The Nexus S and Google: Everything There Is To Know, PCWORLD (Nov.
11, 2010), available at
http://www.pcworld.com/article/210460/the_nexus_s_and_google_everything_there_is_to_know.
html (last visited Nov. 29, 2010) (“Today’s buzz is all about the Samsung Nexus S -- a stillunder-wraps smartphone believed to be the successor to Google’s Nexus One. According to
various leaks, the Nexus S will be a ‘Google experience’ device, meaning it’ll run a stock version
of Android without any of those baked-in manufacturer UIs. And, if the latest rumors prove to be
true, the Samsung Nexus S will be rocking the as-of-yet-unannounced Android Gingerbread
release.”). The “leaks” proved to be true: the Nexus S runs a stock version of Gingerbread.
28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177
2
1
files to a .dex file when building their applications, and thereby infringe the ’520 and ’702
2
patents. That is the intended use of the dx tool, and there is no substantial non-infringing use of
3
the dx tool.
4
Google directly infringes the asserted claims enumerated above under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)
5
because Google, without authority, makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, or imports the Accused
6
Instrumentalities within or into the United States. Further, Google induces the infringement of
7
others under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) because it contracts with, instructs, and otherwise induces others
8
to make, use, offer to sell, sell, or import the Accused Instrumentalities within or into the United
9
States. Google also contributes to the infringement of others under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) because it
10
offers to sell, sells, or imports part or all of the Accused Instrumentalities within or into the
11
United States. With respect to the asserted non-method claims of the asserted patents, the
12
Accused Instrumentalities are specially made or adapted for infringement, and are not a staple
13
article suitable for substantial non-infringing use. Further, Google supplies part or all of the
14
Accused Instrumentalities in or from the United States to foreign contractors, including HTC, in
15
violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).
16
Oracle is not aware of any evidence indicating that anyone, such as a Google partner,
17
OHA member, or downstream licensee, has altered the infringing portions of Google’s Android
18
or Android Platform in any way that is material to the infringement. To the contrary, all available
19
evidence suggests that device manufacturers do not alter the Android operating system in general
20
or the Dalvik virtual machine in particular; and that the changes they do make are generally
21
aimed at the kernel and device drivers (to account for the manufacturer’s particular hardware
22
platform).
23
The manufacturers’ websites confirm this. Google advertises the Nexus S as “Pure
24
Google” and “The new Android phone from Google.”4 Samsung states that “Beacuse Nexus S is
25
google experience device, source codes are opened by Google. So, You can find source code for
26
27
4
http://www.google.com/nexus/#/index
28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177
3
1
the Nexus S at Android Open Source Project site.”5 With respect to Samsung’s Captivate, as far
2
as Oracle has been able to determine, for those Android source code files identified in Exhibits A-
3
G that were present in the source code archive for Samsung’s Captivate, those files were identical
4
to those from Google’s Éclair version of Android.6 With respect to the source code for the
5
Motorola Droid, Motorola states “All Droid source consists entirely of code found at the Android
6
repo site.”7 With respect to the particular HTC-manufactured devices listed above, the only
7
source code provided by HTC8 was for the Linux kernel, WebKit and BlueZ, and there was none
8
for Dalvik, the core libraries, or development tools.
9
Developers have no reason to modify the infringing tools provided by Google for
10
developing Android applications, and Google discourages them from doing so. Google’s
11
Android SDK license states:
12
3.3 Except to the extent required by applicable third party licenses,
you may not copy (except for backup purposes), modify, adapt,
redistribute, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or create
derivative works of the SDK or any part of the SDK. Except to the
extent required by applicable third party licenses, you may not load
any part of the SDK onto a mobile handset or any other hardware
device except a personal computer, combine any part of the SDK
with other software, or distribute any software or device
incorporating a part of the SDK.9
13
14
15
16
17
Google actively discourages modifications to core Android features through a variety of
18
licensing schemes. For example, Google prohibits anyone from using the Android trademark on
19
a device unless the device is determined to be “Android compatible.” Through this requirement,
20
Google ensures that Android devices sold by others will function in the same manner as if they
21
22
23
5
http://opensource.samsung.com/
There was just one exception: the Captivate version of the file fork.c in the Linux kernel was
identical to the default linux 2.6.29 fork.c; there were minor differences with respect to the
version of fork.c in http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=kernel/linux-2.6.git. These differences had no
relation to the infringement by Android that is detailed in Exhibits A-G.
6
24
25
26
7
https://opensource.motorola.com/sf/sfmain/do/viewProject/projects.droid
http://developer.htc.com/
9
http://developer.android.com/sdk/terms.html
8
27
28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177
4
1
D.
2
Copies of documents evidencing ownership of the patent rights are produced at
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Patent Local Rule 3-2(d) — Ownership of the Patents-in-Suit.
OAGOOGLE0000053760-53792 and OAGOOGLE0000056022-56028.
E.
Patent Local Rule 3-2(e) — Patentee’s Asserted Practice of the Claimed
Inventions.
Copies of documents sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of
instrumentalities Oracle relies upon as embodying the asserted claims can be found at the
following three public websites: developer.sun.com, java.sun.com, and www.sun.com. Oracle’s
proprietary commercial releases will be made available for inspection subject to the Protective
Order entered in this case or by agreement of the parties.
10
11
12
Dated: April 1, 2011
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
MARC DAVID PETERS
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
13
By: /s/ Marc David Peters
14
15
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORACLE’S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS
CASE NO. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA
pa-1456177
15
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?