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 4-2 Attorneys' Eyes Only 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 4 ---o0o--- 5 6 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 7 8 9 10 11 ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) GOOGLE, INC., No. CV 10-03561 WHA ) Defendant. ) ______________________________) 12 13 14 15 CONFIDENTIAL TESTIMONY - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY 16 VIDEOTAPED 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION OF ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 17 DESIGNEE: 18 JOHN PAMPUCH FRIDAY, JULY 29, 2011 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PAGES 1 - 220 Page 1 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 4-2 Attorneys' Eyes Only 1 Let's move on to the next -- the third 2 topic that you were designated to testify about 3 today. 4 A Sure. 5 Q -- we may jump back to these previous two 2:13:09PM And again -- 6 topics and ask, you know, some questions or to the 7 extent that there is, you know, relevant questions 8 2:13:16PM that overlaps between the different topics. 9 MR. FRANCIS: So I'll identify as 10 Exhibit 273 Defendant Google, Inc.'s Corrected Third 11 Notice of Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff 12 Oracle America, Inc. 13 (Defendant's Exhibit 273 marked 14 2:13:32PM for identification.) 15 16 17 18 BY MR. FRANCIS: Q 2:13:47PM And if we look at Topic Number 9 on page 3, it states: "The practice of the asserted 19 claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,966,702 20 by JavaOS (including the 21 identification of the specific 22 functionality within JavaOS 23 practicing the claims, the date of 24 the first inclusion of that 25 functionality in JavaOS, and any 2:14:13PM 2:14:25PM Page 118 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 4-2 Attorneys' Eyes Only 1 public disclosure(s), license(s), 2 sale(s), or offer(s) to license or 3 sell of JavaOS before October 31, 4 1996)." 5 Is that correct? 2:14:27PM 2:14:37PM 6 A That's what it says. 7 Q Do you recognize this document? 8 A Yes, I have seen this. 9 Q When did you see this? 10 A Yesterday. 11 Q For the first time yesterday? 12 A Yes. 13 Q Are you prepared to testify on this topic? 14 A I can testify about the implementation of 2:14:46PM 15 the mclass technology in JavaOS and I can talk to 16 the dates that that technology became available. 17 Q 2:15:01PM Can you talk about the actual asserted 18 claims of the patent, as opposed to just the general 19 technology? 20 A I've never seen the patent, and I 21 certainly don't have the expertise to analyze the 22 2:15:25PM patent. 23 24 25 Q Can you testify regarding any public disclosures of JavaOS before October 31, 1996? A No, not significantly, because I'm not 2:15:53PM Page 119 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 4-2 Attorneys' Eyes Only 1 2 A For this topic, no. I only reviewed the 2:22:35PM source code myself. 3 Q What about for any other topics? 4 A Hinkmond Wong I think worked on JavaOS, 5 and we talked about recovery of the files. 6 2:22:49PM Q But you didn't discuss this topic with 8 A Not the implementation, no. 9 Q Why not? 10 A I didn't think it was necessary. 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 him? I had -- 2:23:02PM you know, the source code is self-explanatory. Q Do you know if Hinkmond is familiar with the '702 patent? A I don't know whether he's familiar with it or not. Q 2:23:22PM You testified that you have never seen the '702 patent; is that correct? 18 A That's correct. 19 Q So how are you prepared to testify about 20 the practice of the '702 patent by JavaOS if you 21 have never actually seen the patent? 22 23 24 25 A 2:23:40PM Well, as I said, I can talk about the implementation that's in JavaOS 1.1. Q But the topic doesn't ask about the implementation of JavaOS, it asks for -- it asks 2:24:01PM Page 124 Veritext National Deposition & Litigation Services 866 299-5127 EXHIBIT 4-2 EXHIBIT 4-2

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?