Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 512

ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING AND PARTIALLY DENYING SECOND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF MITCHELL REPORT AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup granting in part and denying in part #473 Motion to Strike (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,

14

Defendant.
/

15
16
17

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER PARTIALLY
GRANTING AND PARTIALLY
DENYING SECOND MOTION
TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
MITCHELL REPORT AND
VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION
In this patent and copyright infringement action involving features of Java and Android,

18

defendant moves to strike portions of opening and reply expert reports regarding patent

19

infringement. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED

20

IN PART.

21

STATEMENT

22

The factual background of this action has been set forth in previous orders (see Dkt.

23

Nos. 137, 230, 433). In August 2011, defendant Google Inc. sought leave to file a motion to

24

strike portions of the opening expert report of John C. Mitchell regarding patent infringement.

25

Google asserted that many aspects of the report were not supported by plaintiff Oracle

26

America, Inc.’s infringement contentions as required by the Patent Local Rules (Dkt. No. 377).

27

Over Oracle’s objections, Google was allowed to file a motion limited to three points of critique

28

(Dkt. Nos. 380, 382). The motion was granted in part and denied in part. Because Google raised

1

meritorious critiques, Google was allowed to file the instant additional motion to strike

2

(Dkt. No. 464). This order follows expedited briefing.

3
4

ANALYSIS
Our Patent Local Rule 3-1 requires detailed disclosure of a party’s patent infringement

December 2010, and Google challenged their sufficiency two months later (Dkt. No. 79). Oracle

7

agreed to supplement its initial infringement contentions and in fact did so twice. Oracle

8

ultimately chose to stand on its April 2011 second supplemental disclosures, despite Google’s

9

position that they still were inadequate. Oracle was warned that if its disclosures later proved

10

inadequate to support its infringement theories, there would be no second chance to cure the

11
For the Northern District of California

contentions. See Patent L.R. 3-1. Oracle initially disclosed its infringement contentions in

6

United States District Court

5

defects (Dkt. No. 110 at 10–11).

12

Google now asserts that the opening and reply expert reports of John C. Mitchell contain

13

infringement theories that were not disclosed in Oracle’s April 2011 infringement contentions.

14

Google also asserts that the reply report contains new material that should have been disclosed in

15

the opening report. Oracle objects to the attacks on the reply report, because “Google did not

16

obtain leave to move to strike any part of the Reply Report, as this is beyond the scope of its

17

August 30, 2011 précis and the Court’s September 26, 2011 Order, which concerned only the

18

[opening] Report” (Opp. 4–5). This objection is overruled. The Mitchell reply report had not yet

19

been served at the time of Google’s original précis request. Google’s critiques of the reply report

20

are in the same vein as its critiques of the opening report, and all of Google’s critiques have been

21

fully briefed. These issues will be resolved now, without further procedural ado.
FUNCTIONS VFORK() AND CLONE() (’720 PATENT).

22

1.

23

Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) required Oracle’s disclosure of infringement contentions to

24

include a “chart identifying specifically where each limitation of each asserted claim is found

25

within each Accused Instrumentality.” Google asserts that the functions vfork() and clone() were

26

not identified in Oracle’s claim charts, but that the Mitchell opening report now relies on them as

27

satisfying certain limitations of claims 1 and 6 of United States Patent Number 7,426,720.

28

Google seeks to strike a portion of paragraph 606 and all of paragraphs 622–27 from the Mitchell
2

1

report “because they improperly refer to and rely upon the vfork() and clone() mechanisms”

2

(Br. 1–2).

3

Claim 1 of the ’720 patent covers a “system for dynamic preloading of classes through

4

memory space cloning of a master runtime system process,” comprising multiple components

5

including “a copy-on-write process cloning mechanism” whose function is described in detail in

6

the claim. Claim 6 covers a “system according to claim 1, further comprising . . . a process

7

cloning mechanism” whose function also is described in detail (col. 10:2–40). The

8

“copy-on-write process cloning mechanism” of claim 1 and the “process cloning mechanism” of

9

claim 6 are similar, but not identical.
Paragraph 606 of the Mitchell report states: “The Linux fork executed by Android

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

provides the ‘copy-on-write process cloning mechanism’ in its fork() system call. Linux provides

12

additional ‘process cloning mechanisms’ in its vfork() and clone() system calls.” The paragraph

13

then quotes at length from a source explaining these three system calls, or “functions” (Banner

14

Exh. A at 301–06).

15

Google’s instant motion does not challenge Mitchell’s theory that the fork() function

16

satisfies the “copy-on-write process cloning mechanism” limitation of claims 1 and 6. Indeed, the

17

Mitchell report also identifies several other items as satisfying the “copy-on-write process cloning

18

mechanism,” and Google does not contend that any of those theories was not timely disclosed.

19

On the other hand, Mitchell’s theory that the vfork() and clone() functions satisfy the

20

“process cloning mechanism” of claim 6 is where the battle is joined. Paragraphs 622–27 of the

21

Mitchell report focus largely on the clone() function as an example of a “process cloning

22

mechanism” for claim 6 purposes (Banner Exh. A at 131–15). Oracle’s operative infringement

23

contentions did not identify the vfork() or clone() functions as satisfying the “process cloning

24

mechanism” limitation of claim 6. This is not disputed. Oracle therefore may not now rely on

25

those functions as satisfying that claim limitation.

26

Oracle states that in both its infringement contentions and in the Mitchell report, its “’720

27

patent infringement theory focuses on a function present in Android called do_fork().” According

28

to Oracle, the report references vfork() and clone() only to explain where do_fork() is found and
3

1

how do_fork is called (Opp. 1–3). True, the Mitchell report identifies the function do_fork() as

2

“provid[ing] the ‘process cloning mechanism’ of claim 6” in one of the very paragraphs Google

3

seeks to strike (Banner Exh. A at 314). Google does not challenge this theory in its instant

4

motion. The report, however, also seems to identify the functions vfork() and clone() as satisfying

5

that limitation, as described above. Such theories would be improper.

6

As to the functions vfork() and clone(), Google’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND

7

DENIED IN PART as follows. Google has not shown that the Mitchell report identifies vfork() or

8

clone() as satisfying the “copy-on-write process cloning mechanism” limitation of claim 1 and

9

dependent claim 6. This order therefore does not address whether such theories were adequately
disclosed in Oracle’s infringement contentions. On the other hand, the Mitchell report does

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

identify vfork() and clone() as satisfying the “process cloning mechanism” limitation of claim 6.

12

Those theories were not disclosed in Oracle’s infringement contentions. Accordingly,

13

Mr. Mitchell may not offer direct testimony that the vfork() or clone() function itself satisfies the

14

“process cloning mechanism” limitation of claim 6. This ruling, however, does not preclude any

15

and all mention of those functions on direct. For example, they may be referenced to describe

16

where and how the do_fork function is called if indeed Oracle contends that do_fork itself

17

satisfies the “process cloning mechanism” limitation.

18

2.

19

Again, the Patent Local Rules required disclosure of a chart identifying where each

“MBS MOBILE” APPLICATION (’476 PATENT).

20

limitation of each asserted claim was found within each accused item. Google asserts that no

21

application called “mBS Mobile” was disclosed in Oracle’s operative infringement contentions,

22

but that the Mitchell opening report now identifies such an application as providing the security

23

functionality claimed in United States Patent Number 6,192,476. Google seeks to strike

24

paragraphs 70 and 77 from the Mitchell report.

25

Paragraphs 70 and 77 are identical. They refer to the mBS Mobile application to illustrate

26

“[s]ome of the ways that application developers could benefit from the java.security framework”

27

(Banner Exh. A at 21–24). It is undisputed that the mBS Mobile application was not mentioned

28

in Oracle’s infringement contentions. The Mitchell report, however, does not accuse the mBS
4

1

Mobile application of satisfying any particular limitation of the asserted claim of the ’476 patent.

2

Rather, the java.security framework is accused, and the mBS Mobile application is cited as an

3

example of the benefit of the alleged infringement. Paragraphs 70 and 77 do not present a new

4

theory of infringement based on the mBS Mobile application. As explained with reference to

5

Google’s first motion to strike portions of the Mitchell report, the Patent Local Rules required

6

Oracle to disclose its theories of infringement, not to identify every evidentiary item of proof

7

supporting those theories.

8
9

In its reply brief, Google characterizes the discussion in paragraphs 70 and 77 as a new
theory of indirect infringement. Google, however, does not explain how Oracle’s disclosures
concerning indirect infringement are supposedly inadequate to support the challenged paragraphs.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

As to the mBS Mobile application, Google’s motion is DENIED.

12

3.

SECURITYMANAGER AND ACCESSCONTROLLER (’476 PATENT).

13

Google asserts that paragraph 115 of the Mitchell reply report “should be stricken because

14

it represents a new infringement theory that was never previously disclosed by Oracle” (Br. 4).

15

The entirety of challenged paragraph 115 states (Banner Exh. B at 47) (internal quotations and

16

citation omitted):

17

20

Even if the SecurityManager is disabled, the Java security
framework may still be used. For example, the static methods in
AccessController are always available to be called. Even if no
SecurityManager is instantiated, Android code includes
AccessController.java and the static methods associated with the
class may be called. Therefore, the functionality of the Java
security framework is accessible via the AccessController.

21

Google argues that this theory is improper because it was not disclosed in Oracle’s infringement

22

contentions and was not presented in the opening Mitchell report. According to Google, both the

23

infringement contentions and the opening report relied on SecurityManager rather than

24

AccessController to show infringement of the ’476 patent (Br. 3–4).

18
19

25

Challenged paragraph 115 is located in a portion of the reply report that addresses

26

claim 10 as an example, stating that the other then-asserted claims “are similar” (Banner Exh. B

27

at 46). At present, only claim 14 of the ’476 patent remains at issue (Dkt. No. 471). The instant

28

record includes portions of the infringement contentions and opening report that address claim 10,
5

1

but not claim 14. These excerpts specifically address the “determining whether said action is

2

authorized” limitation of claim 10. Claim 14 includes a similar, but not identical, limitation.

3

Because both sides rely on the claim 10 portions of the infringement disclosures and opening

4

report, this order assumes for the limited purposes of the instant motion that those claim 10

5

arguments apply equally to claim 14.

6

Oracle’s infringement contentions disclose AccessController along with SecurityManager

7

with respect to the relevant limitation (Banner Exh. D at 22). Thus, the statements about

8

AccessController in paragraph 115 do not run afoul of the disclosure rules.

9

Whether the content of paragraph 115 should have been in the opening report is a separate
question. The parties were warned that reply reports must be limited to true rebuttal, should be

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

very brief, and should not add new material that should have been placed in the opening report

12

(Dkt. No. 56 at ¶ 8). The Mitchell opening report opined that SecurityManager.java was the

13

accused element that satisfied the “determining whether said action is authorized” claim

14

limitation (Banner Exh. A at 362). The report further explained that it did so “by calling the

15

AccessController.checkPermission method, which in turn calls the

16

AccessControlContext.checkPermission method to check the permissions” (id. at 363). The

17

opening report did not identify any other accused element as satisfying the limitation in question,

18

and it did not identify any other steps by which the AccessController could be called.

19

The statement in paragraph 115 of the reply report that the AccessController methods may

20

be called by something other than the SecurityManager presents a new infringement theory. This

21

statement is not true rebuttal; it is sandbagging. Oracle had the burden to set forth all of its

22

infringement theories in the opening report. If Oracle intended to accuse something other than the

23

SecurityManager of infringing the claims of the ’476 patent by calling the AccessController

24

methods, then the Mitchell opening report should have said so.

25

Google argues that this critique is analogous to the critique regarding DvmDex.h in

26

Google’s first motion to strike, and that this critique should be rejected for the same reason. Not

27

so. There, the infringement contentions identified specific accused functions, and the Mitchell

28

report later identified the code files in which those functions were stored. Here, the opening
6

1

report identified a series of accused steps, and the reply report then sought to replace one step in

2

the series with a different (and unspecified) accused element. Doing so would present a new

3

infringement theory.

4

As to the theory of infringement by something other than the SecurityManager calling the

5

AccessController methods, Google’s motion is GRANTED. Paragraph 115 of the Mitchell reply

6

report is STRICKEN.

7

4.

MULTIPLE INSTRUCTIONS AND UNSUCCESSFUL SIMULATED EXECUTION
(’520 PATENT).

8
Google asserts that the Mitchell reply report presents two new theories of infringement of
9
United States Patent Number 6,061,520. According to Google, Oracle’s infringement contentions
10
asserted claims of the ’520 patent “where it successfully creates a single new instruction, referred
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

and the Mitchell opening report both advanced the theory that Android’s dx tool infringes the
11
12
to as a fill-array-data instruction, that replaces a less efficient series of Java bytecode instructions
13
for initializing individual elements of a static array” (Br. 4). On the other hand, Google interprets
14
the Mitchell reply report as claiming that infringement includes “instances where more than one
15
instruction is created” and instances where simulated execution is not successful (id. at 5).
16
Google moves to strike the “one or more” phrase and the last three sentences of paragraph 92 of
17
the Mitchell reply report.
18
A.

Creation of Multiple Instructions.

19
The relevant portions of Oracle’s infringement contentions and the Mitchell opening
20
report do refer to creating a single instruction, not one or more instructions (e.g., Banner Exh. E
21
at 29, Exh. A at 277). The portion of paragraph 92 that refers to creating “one or more
22
instructions” purports to further explain Oracle’s infringement theory; it does not directly
23
respond to any argument by the opposing expert.
24
Oracle does not attempt to explain or justify the reference to creating “one ore more”
25
instructions in the Mitchell reply report. Oracle cites only to Google’s interrogatory responses,
26
which are irrelevant to the question at hand (Opp. 7). The statement in paragraph 92 that the
27
accused elements create “one or more” instructions amounts to a new infringement theory. As
28
such, it is improper.
7

1
2

B.

Unsuccessful Simulated Execution.

The last three sentences of paragraph 92 address “Prof. Parr’s example in his Appendix A,

not standard, Android code (Peters Exh. C). As such, it is a hypothetical example. The

5

statements addressing this hypothetical example are true rebuttal and need not be supported by

6

any previous disclosures. In particular, the statement that the claims of the ’520 patent “do not

7

require the simulating step to succeed” expresses a broad view on the scope of the claims as

8

applied to the hypothetical example. It does not amount to an entirely new infringement theory,

9

because it does not accuse any particular new item of infringement. Even if Oracle chose in its

10

infringement contentions to accuse only devices and methods in which simulated execution is

11
For the Northern District of California

Section II” (Banner Exh. B at 39). This example involved a test that was run on modified, i.e.,

4

United States District Court

3

successful, Oracle’s expert still may rebut a hypothetical example by opining that circumstances

12

in which simulated execution does not succeed may also infringe. The last three sentences of

13

paragraph 92 are proper.

14

As to the reply report discussion of the ’520 patent, Google’s motion is GRANTED IN

15

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

16

from the third sentence of paragraph 92 of the Mitchell reply report. The last three sentences of

17

that paragraph remain intact.

18
19

The reference to creating more than one instruction is STRICKEN

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, defendant’s motion to strike portions of the opening and

20

reply expert reports of John C. Mitchell regarding patent infringement is GRANTED IN PART AND

21

DENIED IN PART. As to the functions vfork() and clone(), the motion is GRANTED IN PART AND

22

DENIED IN PART. Mr. Mitchell may not offer direct testimony that the vfork() or clone() function

23

itself satisfies the “process cloning mechanism” limitation of claim 6 of the ’720 patent. As to the

24

mBS Mobile application, the motion is DENIED. As to the theory that the ’476 patent can be

25

infringed by something other than the SecurityManager calling the AccessController methods, the

26

motion is GRANTED. Paragraph 115 of the Mitchell reply report is STRICKEN. As to the reply

27

report discussion of the ’520 patent, Google’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

28

The reference to creating more than one instruction is STRICKEN from the third sentence of
8

1

paragraph 92 of the Mitchell reply report. The last three sentences of that paragraph

2

remain intact.

3

Any denial of a motion to strike does not mean that the item at issue in the motion is

4

automatically admitted in evidence — it still must be moved in evidence, subject to any other

5

objections, at trial. Similarly, any grant of a motion to strike does not exclude the item at issue in

6

the motion under any and all circumstances; a party who prevailed on a motion to strike may

7

open the door to the stricken material.

8

The hearing on the instant motion previously set for October 13, 2011, is VACATED. The

9

hearing on the motion for relief from a non-dispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge, set for
the same day, will go forward as planned.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: October 11, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9