Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 854

REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 4, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012)

Download PDF
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 14 Plaintiff, v. REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT GOOGLE INC., Defendant. / 15 16 No. C 10-03561 WHA In connection with the opening statements (and eventually the special verdict form at the 17 end of Phase One), the Court will want the jury to be clearly told what specifically stands 18 accused of copyright infringement (and what is not accused). The Court is considering making 19 its own statement to the jury in this regard after the opening statements so as to frame for the 20 jury the Phase One issues in play. To do so, the Court asks counsel to meet and confer and to 21 revise the following summary. The summary of what the Court understands is as follows: 22 What stands accused are: 23 • The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files), including 24 rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English comments 25 that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37 API 26 implementation. 27 • Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API 28 “specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such items. 1 • The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization, 2 it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the 3 media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization. 4 • Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37 Java 5 APIs. 6 What is not accused: 7 • Android’s use of the Java programming language (other than any direct copying 8 of source code). 9 • The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 specifications). 12 • The idea of APIs. 13 • The Dalvik virtual machine. 14 Counsel should at least be able to agree on how we will describe the items in play in 15 Phase One. By THURSDAY, APRIL 12 AT NOON, both sides shall please file a statement along 16 the lines of the above with appropriate revisions. 17 The Court will not rule on the copyrightability issues until all of the Phase One evidence 18 is in the trial record and counsel are reminded again of the need to place in the record all 19 evidence on which they will rely for their respective positions, both as to copyrightability and 20 infringement and defenses. Before Phase One closing argument, the Court will decide whether 21 to ask for an advisory verdict on issues. (As already clear, damages evidence, including 22 copyright damages evidence, will be reserved to Phase Three). 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 Dated: April 4, 2012. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 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?