Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
632
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORTS OF GREGORY K. LEONARD AND ALANA J. COXgranting in part and denying in part #585 Motion to Strike #558 MOTION to Strike ORACLE AMERICA INC.S MOTION TO EXCLUDE PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT REPORTS OF GREGORY K. LEONARD AND ALAN J. COX - REDACTED (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2011)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION TO EXCLUDE
PORTIONS OF THE EXPERT
REPORTS OF GREGORY
K. LEONARD AND ALAN J. COX
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.
/
INTRODUCTION
In this patent and copyright infringement action involving Java and Android, plaintiff
16
moves to strike portions of the reports by defendant’s damages experts. For the following
17
reasons, with one exception explained below, the motion is DENIED.
18
STATEMENT
19
The factual background of this action has been set forth in previous orders (see Dkt.
20
Nos. 137, 230, 433). The damages aspect of this action has been controversial. The parties and
21
their retained damages experts have advanced extremely divergent outcomes. Oracle’s expert,
22
Professor Iain Cockburn, opined in his first report that a hypothetical license for the alleged
23
infringement would have been “at least $1.4 billion” and “could be as much as $6.1 billion” (Dkt.
24
No. 230 at 4). Responding, Google’s experts estimated much lower damages: $27.8 million
25
and $6.44 million for the alleged patent and copyright infringement, respectively (Dearborn Exh.
26
1 [Leonard Report] at 72; Dearborn Exh. 2 [Cox Report] at 64). The complexity of calculating
27
potential patent and copyright damages, and starkly conflicting expert testimony, led to the
28
appointment under Rule 706 of an independent expert to testify as to damages (Dkt. No. 374).
1
Plaintiff Oracle has now moved to strike portions of Google’s expert reports on
2
patent-infringement damages by Dr. Gregory K. Leonard and copyright-infringement damages by
3
Dr. Alan J. Cox. This order follows full briefing.
4
ANALYSIS
5
“A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education”
6
may provide opinion testimony “if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the
7
testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the
8
principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.” FRE 702. District courts thus “are
9
charged with a ‘gatekeeping role,’ the objective of which is to ensure that expert testimony
admitted into evidence is both reliable and relevant.” Sundance, Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Ltd., 550 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
12
Here, Oracle seeks to strike significant portions of both of Google’s damages reports.
13
Oracle contends that the reports contained unqualified technical opinions, were based on
14
unreliable “spoon-fed” facts, and were inconsistent with established damages principles. Each of
15
Oracle’s arguments will be addressed in turn.
16
1.
17
Oracle argues that Drs. Leonard and Cox, both economists with no technical expertise,
UNQUALIFIED TECHNICAL OPINIONS.
18
offered unqualified opinions regarding technical matters. Specifically, Oracle seeks to strike
19
sections of the reports that stated that Google had “good” and “multiple acceptable and effective
20
non-infringing alternatives” to the patents and copyrights in suit at the time of the hypothetical
21
negotiation (Br. 4). This objection is overruled. Both experts relied on Google’s non-
22
infringement experts, interviews with Google’s employees, and documentary evidence for the
23
technical points. Expert reliance on foundational facts supplied by Google’s engineers can be
24
proper so long as they testify to the foundational facts with firsthand knowledge. See Therasense,
25
Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. C 04-02123 WHA, 2008 WL 2323856 at *2 (N.D. Cal. May
26
22, 2008) (Alsup, J.) (“The traditional and correct way to proceed is for a foundational witness to
27
testify first-hand at trial to the foundational fact . . . and to be cross-examined. Then the expert
28
can offer his or her opinion on the assumption that the foundational fact is accepted by the jury.”).
2
1
Google acknowledged in its opposition brief that it will “offer the underlying factual testimony
2
from the percipient witnesses first, before its [damages] experts may testify based on those facts”
3
(Opp. 3).
4
Oracle’s supposed examples of inappropriate technical opinions are not persuasive
5
(Br. 4–5). For instance, Oracle objects to the statement, “Google could have used a programming
6
language other than Java” in Dr. Leonard’s report as an inappropriate technical opinion (Br. 4).
7
But Dr. Leonard cites interviews with three different Google engineers and non-infringement
8
expert reports for that proposition (Leonard Report 13 n. 25). This order will not address each of
9
Oracle’s examples individually. Having reviewed the record, this order finds that in each
example, the damages experts did rely on sources of information reasonably relied upon as long
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
as the foundational facts are properly laid at trial. Of course, the expert should make clear that he
12
assumes this point and is not himself qualified to make expert findings on the technical point.
13
2.
14
In a parallel way, Oracle argues that Drs. Leonard and Cox inappropriately based their
RELIANCE ON INTERVIEWS WITH GOOGLE EMPLOYEES.
15
calculations on “spoon-fed” facts given by Google employees (Br. 6). As discussed above, expert
16
reliance on interviews with Google’s engineers can be proper so long as they can testify to the
17
foundational facts with firsthand knowledge. See Therasense, Inc., 2008 WL 2323856 at *2. If
18
Oracle is worried about bias, then it should make its arguments on cross-examination.
19
Oracle also argues that the timing of these interviews is unfair because most were
20
conducted the “week prior to service of the Reports and after the conclusion of fact depositions”
21
(Br. 6). A recent order, however, addressed this concern by allowing additional depositions of
22
three of the “spoon-feeders,” the three to be selected by Oracle (Dkt. No. 617). All but one of the
23
seven interviewees referenced in the damages reports had already been deposed or offered for
24
deposition (ibid.).
25
Oracle also argues that Drs. Leonard and Cox have inappropriately relied on interviews at
26
odds with documents produced in discovery (Br. 8–9). This argument overstates the record
27
evidence favoring Oracle. While Oracle can point to discovery documents that support its
28
contentions, Google can similarly rely on its own witnesses to rebut those contentions. Who is to
3
1
say at this stage which is more accurate? Documents produced in discovery are not judicial
2
admissions. They are only data points. Company witnesses can try to explain away and even
3
contradict those data points. Subject to the rules of evidence, Oracle will have its chance during
4
trial to make the contrary case with Google’s own documents. See Hangarter v. Provident Life &
5
Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1017 n.14 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that the factual basis of an expert
6
opinion goes to the credibility of the testimony, not the admissibility, and that it is up to the
7
opposing party to examine the factual basis for the opinion in cross-examination).
8
3.
9
Oracle argues that Drs. Leonard and Cox cite no evidence for some key propositions
OPINIONS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE.
(Br. 9–10). This argument is plainly wrong. The allegedly unsupported sentences in the expert
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
reports were actually part of broader discussions with citations. For example, Oracle objects to
12
the phrase, “demand for a smartphone is a complex function of all of its attributes, and a
13
smartphone with slower application speed can still be highly demanded by consumers” (Br. 10) as
14
being unsupported. This passage has been taken out of context; instead, the entire sentence
15
included the introductory phrase “As discussed above . . .” (Leonard Report 25). And above that
16
sentence, on the same page in the report, Dr. Leonard cited a record document, a market research
17
study, and a deposition of an Oracle engineer for the proposition that there are many different
18
attributes that drive consumer demand (Leonard Report 25). Oracle has made no attempt to
19
debunk these citations.
20
Oracle takes issue with another phrase, “[smartphone manufacturers] would have accepted
21
small reductions in performance or somewhat more demanding handset specification in order that
22
they could still be able to offer Android smartphones” (Br. 10). Contrary to Oracle’s assertion
23
that this was ipse dixit, this phrase actually had a citation to an interview with Andy Rubin,
24
founder of Android and the head of Google’s Android division (Leonard Report at 30). Likewise,
25
the other examples in Oracle’s brief either have supporting citations attached to it or are part of a
26
broader discussion where support can be inferred from surrounding text.
27
28
4
1
4.
OPINIONS ON FRAGMENTATION AND STAGNATION.
2
Oracle argues that Google’s damages experts were unqualified to opine on stagnation and
fragmentation in the Java community and relied on unreliable sources in doing so (Br. 11). This
4
order disagrees. The term “stagnation” was used in a business sense to describe dissatisfaction
5
among carriers, device manufacturers, and developers for the Java platform (see Leonard
6
Report 31–33; Cox Report 44–45). Similarly, “fragmentation” was used in a business sense to
7
describe how Java’s “write once, run anywhere” marketing concept was being eroded by a
8
proliferation of incompatible devices and platforms (see Leonard Report 34–37; Cox
9
Report 45–48). Notably, Oracle’s own damages expert, Professor Cockburn, has opined on this
10
same fragmentation issue without having a background in computer science (Dkt. No. 230 at 9).
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
3
Oracle also argues that Google’s damages experts failed to rely on facts or data
12
customarily relied upon in their opinions on fragmentation and stagnation. Oracle does not meet
13
its burden to support this argument because it makes no attempt to debunk the citations. In their
14
reports, Google’s experts cited depositions with former and current Oracle employees, including
15
Hasan Rizvi (Senior Vice President of Java), Jeet Kaul (former Vice President of the Java Clients
16
Software Group at Sun Microsystems), and Vineet Gupta (Senior Director, Chief Technology
17
Strategy Officer at Sun Microsystems, and subsequently an employee of Oracle). Google’s
18
damages experts also relied on interviews with John Rizzo (a third-party witness who has
19
experience with Java licenses), postings on internet blogs by James Gosling (former Chief
20
Technology Officer at Sun), and other online sources. These are sources of information the
21
damage experts can reasonably rely upon as long as the foundational facts are properly laid at
22
trial. Oracle has not meet its burden to show that these sources are unreliable.
LITTLE OR NO UPWARD ADJUSTMENT FOR LOST BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY.
23
5.
24
Oracle’s expert, Professor Cockburn, opined that the starting point for patent damages
25
should be upwardly adjusted because infringement would have prevented Sun from offering a
26
commercial version of the Java platform that would run within Android (Br. 12). That is, Sun
27
would not be able to develop a potential business opportunity to create an Android-compatible
28
Java platform. Oracle now seeks to exclude portions of Dr. Leonard’s report that criticized this
5
1
upward adjustment by arguing that Dr. Leonard’s opinion constitutes an inappropriate mitigation
2
defense (Br. 12–13). Google’s Dr. Leonard opined that there should be little or no upward
3
adjustment because this business opportunity was not lost and was not worth that much to begin
4
with (Leonard Report 82–83). Despite using the word “mitigate” in his report, Dr. Leonard’s
5
opinion was not based on the legal assumptions of a contract-style mitigation defense. Instead,
6
Dr. Leonard merely opined on the value of this allegedly lost business opportunity. This
7
objection is overruled.
8
6.
MISUSE OF NON-INFRINGING ALTERNATIVES TO
REDUCE DISGORGEMENT DAMAGES.
9
Turning to the copyright side, Oracle argues that Google’s Dr. Cox inappropriately opined
10
Copyright law provides recovery for “any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
that non-infringing alternatives would provide a basis for calculating wrongful profit (Br. 11–12).
11
12
infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.” 17 U.S.C. 504(b).
13
In his damages report, Dr. Cox opined: “The ready availability of obviously acceptable
14
non-infringing alternatives also provide [sic] basis that the ‘element of profit’ that is attributable
15
to the allegedly infringed API claim contained in the Android framework is very small or zero”
16
(Cox Report 38). Dr. Cox did not explain how the availability of non-infringing alternatives
17
supposedly decreased the wrongful profits attributable to infringement. In its opposition brief,
18
Google argues that the existence of non-infringing alternatives suggests that profits are
19
attributable to other, non-infringing features added by the alleged infringer (Opp. 14). This is not
20
convincing.
21
There is no controlling authority on the issue of whether the existence of non-infringing
22
alternatives should be considered when calculating disgorgement damages under Section 504(b).
23
But our court of appeals’ interpretation of the purpose behind Section 504(b) sheds light on this
24
issue. Our court of appeals has held that Section 504(b) was enacted to explicitly provide for two
25
distinct monetary remedies — actual damages and recovery of wrongful profits — to serve
26
different purposes. Polar Bear Prods., Inc. v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 708 (9th Cir. 2004).
27
Damages for lost license fees, derived from a hypothetical negotiation, fall under the rubric of
28
actual damages. Id. at 708–709. As Dr. Cox makes clear in his report, the existence of “multiple
6
1
acceptable and effective” non-infringing alternatives “at little or no additional cost” greatly
2
reduces the lost license fees (Cox Report 61). This order finds this aspect acceptable. Not
3
acceptable, however, is allowing the existence of non-infringing alternatives to reduce recovery
4
of wrongful profits. This is a distinct remedy for the purpose of disgorgement. Non-infringing
5
alternatives have nothing to do with this. The motion to strike portions of Dr. Cox’s report that
6
opined that non-infringing alternatives would provide a basis for calculating wrongful profit
7
is GRANTED.
8
7.
9
Oracle argues that Dr. Leonard was unqualified to critique the conjoint analysis — a type
CRITIQUE OF CONJOINT ANALYSIS.
of consumer-preference marketing study — conducted by Dr. Shugan (Br. 13–14), and attacks
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Dr. Leonard’s interpretation of the relevant academic literature in the field of survey-based
12
research. This order disagrees. Dr. Leonard’s opinions on conjoint analysis are proper expert
13
testimony. Dr. Leonard has published and conducted studies in the field of survey-based research
14
(Leonard Decl. ¶¶ 22–23). He extensively cited to academic literature in his criticisms of Dr.
15
Shugan’s conjoint study. If Oracle has problems with Dr. Leonard’s interpretation of the
16
literature, then it should save its critiques for trial.
17
18
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to exclude portions of Dr. Leonard’s and
19
Dr. Cox’s expert reports is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. As to Dr. Cox’s opinions
20
that non-infringing alternatives were a basis for calculating wrongful profits, the motion is
21
GRANTED. Any opinion in the Expert Report of Dr. Alan M. Cox that stated, in substance, that
22
non-infringing alternatives should in any way affect the calculation of infringer’s profits under 17
23
U.S.C. 504(b) is STRICKEN. As to Oracle’s other contentions, the motion is DENIED.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
Dated: November 28, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
28
7
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?