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)
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?