Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
EXHIBITS re 503 Declaration in Support, (Exhibits L through R) filed by Oracle America, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit M, # 2 Exhibit N, # 3 Exhibit O, # 4 Exhibit P, # 5 Exhibit Q, # 6 Exhibit R)(Related document(s) 503 ) (Muino, Daniel) (Filed on 10/7/2011) Modified on 10/11/2011 (wsn, COURT STAFF).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
EXPERT REPORT OF DAVID I. AUGUST, PH.D.
REGARDING THE NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,910,205
For the remaining terms in the Asserted Patents, I have applied the plain meaning
of those terms as they would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
If the proposed definitions are not accepted by the Court or if additional claim
terms are defined by the Court, I reserve the right to modify my opinion based on the
interpretation of the claims given by the Court.
SUMMARY OF THE ACCUSED FUNCTIONALITY
Overview of Google’s accused products
I have been informed that Oracle has identified the following accused products:
“(i) ‘Android’ or ‘the Android Platform’ including the Android SDK and Android source code
distributed through various git repositories; (ii) Google devices running Android; and (iii) other
devices running Android.” (Mitchell Patent Report at ¶ 171.)
A number of versions of the Android operating system are accused by Oracle,
including version 1.5 (“Cupcake”), 1.6 (“Donut”), 2.0/2.1 (“Eclair”), 2.2 (“Froyo”) and 2.3
(“Gingerbread”). Dr. Mitchell admits that he has not reviewed source code for version 3.0
(“Honeycomb”) or the unreleased version of Android dubbed “Ice Cream Sandwich”. (Id. at
¶ 173.) Because Dr. Mitchell focused on Android 2.2 in his report, I do so here as well. But to
the extent Dr. Mitchell is permitted to put forward arguments specific to the other versions of
Android, I reserve the right to address them in the future.
“Android” is defined by Dr. Mitchell as “all versions of Android up to and
including version 2.3 (‘Gingerbread’)” unless otherwise specified. (Id. at ¶ 173.) “Google
devices running Android” is defined by Dr. Mitchell as “the Google Developer Phones, the
Google Nexus One, and the Google Nexus S.” (Id. at ¶ 172.) “Other mobile devices running
Android” is defined by Dr. Mitchell as “HTC’s EVO 4G, HTC’s Droid Incredible, HTC’s G2,
Motorola’s Droid, and Samsung’s Captivate.” (Id. at ¶ 171.)
Note also that while Froyo was shipped on the Nexus One and Gingerbread
shipped on the Nexus S, Oracle has not established what portions of the Android operating
system is on third party devices. This is an important issue because device manufacturers often
modify the source code. (See Excerpt of the Transcript of the Deposition of Patrick Brady on
July 21, 2011 at 114-129, Exhibit X.)
Executed this 25th day of August, 2011.
I declare that to the best of my knowledge the foregoing is true and correct as to the facts
stated and my opinions as expressed.
David I. August, Ph.D.
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?