Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 909

MOTION for Administrative Relief Regarding Statement to Jury filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Responses due by 4/16/2012. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Declaration Declaration of Marc Peters)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 4/12/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664) KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (Bar No. 145384) MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725) DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624) 755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018 Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177) 1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460 ORACLE CORPORATION DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049) DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527) MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600) 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114 Attorneys for Plaintiff ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 22 ORACLE AMERICA, INC. 23 Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF MARC PETERS IN SUPPORT OF ORACLE AMERICA’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF REGARDING STATEMENT TO JURY Defendant. Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup 24 v. 25 GOOGLE INC. 26 Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA 27 28 PETERS DECL. ISO ORACLE MOTION RE STATEMENT TO JURY CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA sf-3132202 1 I, Marc David Peters, declare as follows: 2 I am an attorney at Morrison & Foerster LLP and am counsel of record to Plaintiff Oracle 3 America, Inc. (“Oracle”). I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and, if called 4 to testify, could and would testify competently to the following. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1. On April 11, 2012, I sent an email to counsel for Google proposing the following stipulated statement to the jury: The names of the various items appearing in the disputed API package specifications, such as names of API files, packages, classes, and methods, are not protected. The selection or arrangement of the names of the various items in the API package specifications may still be protected by copyright if those names are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combination constitutes an original work. The Court will instruct the jury on this issue following the close of evidence. A true and correct copy of the above-referenced correspondence is attached as Exhibit 1. 2. On April 11, 2012, counsel for Google responded and declined Oracle’s request. 14 See Exhibit 1. That evening, I met and conferred with counsel for Google, but we were unable to 15 come to an agreement regarding the stipulated statement, or the timing of the delivery of the 16 Court’s deemed statement regarding the uncopyrightability of names. 17 18 19 20 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on April 12, 2012, in San Francisco, California. /s/ Marc David Peters Marc David Peters 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETERS DECL. ISO ORACLE MOTION RE STATEMENT TO JURY CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA sf-3132202 1 1 2 3 4 ATTESTATION I, Michael A. Jacobs, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this Declaration of Marc Peters. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Marc Peters has concurred in this filing. 5 6 Date: April 12, 2012 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Michael A. Jacobs EXHIBIT 1 From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Matthias Kamber <> Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:49 PM Peters, Marc D.; dalvik-KS (; DALVIK-KVN; '' ( ( Oracle-Google (; Oracle-ProjectX RE: Oracle v. Google - proposed admissions Dear Marc,    As to the below request, Google does not agree to appending the language you propose to the statement.  Unlike the  statements that the Court deemed admitted, Oracle’s statement is more akin to a jury instruction.  We see no reason for  appending this language in light of the fact that the Court will separately provide both preliminary and final instructions  on the relevant issues.    Regards,    Matthias    From: Peters, Marc D. [] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:58 PM To: dalvik-KS (; DALVIK-KVN; '' ( ( Cc: Oracle-Google (; Oracle-ProjectX Subject: RE: Oracle v. Google - proposed admissions   Dear counsel,    We thought that the following rephrasing may be clearer and more acceptable:    Directly following the statement “The names of the various items appearing in the disputed API package specifications,  such as names of API files, packages, classes, and methods, are not protected,” the jury shall be told the following:  “The  selection or arrangement of the names of the various items in the API package specifications may still be protected by  copyright if those names are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their  combination constitutes an original work.  The Court will instruct the jury on this issue following the close of evidence."    This language is drawn from the Court's order at page 8 of ECF No. 433.    Best regards,  Marc              From: Peters, Marc D. Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:38 AM To: dalvik-KS (; DALVIK-KVN (; '' ( ( 1 Cc: Oracle-Google (; Oracle-ProjectX Subject: RE: Oracle v. Google - proposed admissions   Dear counsel,    In light of the Court's order of this morning (Dkt. 896), would Google agree that directly following the statement “The  names of the various items appearing in the disputed API package specifications, such as names of API files, packages,  classes, and methods, are not protected,” the jury shall be told the following:  “The selection, arrangement, and  structure of items in the API package specifications may be protected.  The Court will instruct the jury on this issue  following the close of evidence.”  This language corresponds to the Court's language in the 9/15/11 MSJ Order:  "This  order finds that the names of the various items appearing in the disputed API package specifications are not protected  by copyright. This order makes no finding as to whether any other elements of the API package specifications (or their  selection or arrangement) are protected or infringed."  (ECF No. 433 at 13.)  Please let me know by 3pm.    Best regards,  Marc              From: Peters, Marc D. Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 11:37 PM To: dalvik-KS (; DALVIK-KVN (; '' ( ( Cc: Oracle-Google (; Oracle-ProjectX Subject: Oracle v. Google - proposed admissions   Dear counsel,    Please let me know by 3pm Wednesday if Google will stipulate to one or more of the admissions identified in the  attached proposed order.  The factual and legal support for these admissions is found in the attached draft motion.      Best regards,  Marc            Marc David Peters, Ph.D.  Morrison & Foerster LLP  755 Page Mill Road  Palo Alto, CA 94304‐1018  650‐813‐5932 tel  650‐251‐3834 direct fax  650‐494‐0792 fax    --------------------------------------------------------------------2 To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. For information about this legend, go to ============================================================================ This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete the message. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

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?