Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 509

DECLARATION of RUCHIKA AGRAWAL in Opposition to 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 1-1, # 2 Exhibit 1-2, # 3 Exhibit 1-3, # 4 Exhibit 1-4, # 5 Exhibit 1-5, # 6 Exhibit 1-6, # 7 Exhibit 1-7, # 8 Exhibit 1-8, # 9 Exhibit 1-9, # 10 Exhibit 1-10, # 11 Exhibit 1-11, # 12 Exhibit 1-12, # 13 Exhibit 2-1, # 14 Exhibit 2-2, # 15 Exhibit 2-3, # 16 Exhibit 2-4, # 17 Exhibit 2-5, # 18 Exhibit 2-6, # 19 Exhibit 2-7, # 20 Exhibit 2-8, # 21 Exhibit 2-9, # 22 Exhibit 2-10, # 23 Exhibit 2-11, # 24 Exhibit 2-12, # 25 Exhibit 2-13, # 26 Exhibit 2-14, # 27 Exhibit 2-15, # 28 Exhibit 2-16, # 29 Exhibit 2-17, # 30 Exhibit 3-1, # 31 Exhibit 3-2, # 32 Exhibit 3-3, # 33 Exhibit 3-4, # 34 Exhibit 3-5, # 35 Exhibit 3-6, # 36 Exhibit 3-7, # 37 Exhibit 3-8, # 38 Exhibit 3-9, # 39 Exhibit 3-10, # 40 Exhibit 3-11, # 41 Exhibit 4-1, # 42 Exhibit 4-2, # 43 Exhibit 4-3, # 44 Exhibit 5-1, # 45 Exhibit 5-2, # 46 Exhibit 5-3, # 47 Supplement 5-4)(Related document(s) 496 , 494 , 492 , 493 , 495 ) (Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 10/7/2011)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 1-11 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 4 5 -------------------------- 6 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 7 8 9 Plaintiff, ) vs. ) GOOGLE, INC., 10 11 ) No. CV 10-03561 ) Defendant. ) -------------------------- 12 13 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 14 15 16 17 Videotaped Deposition of Jeet Kaul, taken at 18 755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, 19 commencing at 9:28 a.m., Friday, August 5, 2011, 20 before Ashley Soevyn, CSR 12019. 21 22 23 24 25 PAGES 1 - 243 1 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 1-11 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. -- the Sun IP? A. You know, I do not know of direct facts of whether that stuff was communicated to Google or not. Q. Regardless of what was communicated to Google, are you aware of any facts that demonstrate that Google knew it was infringing Sun's Java IP? 11:58:29 A. You know, my fundamental perception is that Google was an active participant of JCP. Many of Google employees were ex-Sun employees. All of them knew how we did licensing, what the core of it was, how we built the platform, what files were involved. And so I jumped to conclusion that they knew that 11:58:55 this is happening, that this is the core business, so that's how I kind of jump to the conclusion, you know. I knew many of these former Sun employees, so -Q. Do you know whether any of the former Sun employees that you're referring to, who went to Google, worked on the Android project? A. At least one. Q. Who is that? A. It's Eric Chu. Q. Do you know what Mr. Chu did on the Android project, once he went to Google? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rest of the day. And if anything comes to mind, let me know, but we can -- we can move on. A. Yeah. Q. We don't have to just -A. Right. Q. -- have you, you know, sit on the record 12:00:59 thinking. Prior to Oracle acquiring Sun, do you know whether anyone from Sun ever told anyone at Google that Sun believed Google was infringing Sun's intellectual property with Android? MS. RUTHERFORD: Objection to form. THE WITNESS: So I categorically do not 12:01:36 know that, but I was aware that -- I was made aware that there was some conversation like that that had happened. BY MR. PURCELL: Q. When you were made aware of some conversation like that that had happened, what conversation were you made aware of? A. I don't know this for a fact. So I just 12:02:01 want to make sure you know that. I -- I don't remember who mentioned it to me, but I was told that there are people who had some conversation raised to people at Google. 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I was told that he was responsible for the 11:59:30 open handset lines, formation of. Q. Do you know whether Mr. Chu did any work in developing the Android platform after he went to Google? A. I don't know. And that's not my perception, but I don't know. 11:59:59 Q. Have you told me every fact that you're aware of that contributed to your belief that Google knew it was infringing Sun's Java IP? MS. RUTHERFORD: What he means is facts that you didn't learn from counsel. THE WITNESS: Oh. MR. PURCELL: No, if he learned a fact from counsel, he can testify to that. He can't testify to what counsel told him. THE WITNESS: So, you know, there are 12:00:30 things that I'm kind of not right now jump in my mind. Maybe, you know, if over time today they come to mind, I can share, but right now -BY MR. PURCELL: Q. Right now, nothing comes to mind? A. No, no. I can spend some time thinking, if you would like me to, but -Q. Well, it's fine to think throughout the 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Do you recall roughly what timeframe this conversation between Sun and Google took place? A. I don't remember right now, I'm sorry. Q. And you don't know who the participants 12:02:30 were for Sun or for Google in this conversation? A. Absolutely, I, unfortunately, do not know. Q. During this conversation -- strike that. Is this one conversation that you were informed about the only conversation you're aware of that took place between Sun and Google, prior to the Oracle acquisition, regarding whether Android was infringing Sun intellectual property? 12:02:58 A. This was the only conversation that I'm aware of, you know, other than, you know, the one meeting that I had personally, yes. Q. Well, let's hold off on the one meeting. We'll get back to that. During this conversation that you were informed of, do you know whether anyone from Sun identified any specific patents to Google that they claim were being infringed by Android? 12:03:23 A. Okay. It's, again, kind of hard. No, I don't know if they list it, but, you know, my perception was that they probably, you know, talked 99 101 Pages 98 to 101 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 1-11

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?