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)
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