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)

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)
[e-mail]
KENNETH A. KUWAYTI (Bar No. 145384)
[e-mail]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[e-mail]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[e-mail]
755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[e-mail]
1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[e-mail]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[e-mail]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[e-mail]
500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065
Telephone: [phone] / Facsimile: [phone]
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 <[e-mail]>
Wednesday, April 11, 2012 5:49 PM
Peters, Marc D.; dalvik-KS ([e-mail]); DALVIK-KVN;
'[e-mail]' ([e-mail]) ([e-mail])
Oracle-Google ([e-mail]); 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. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 1:58 PM
To: dalvik-KS ([e-mail]); DALVIK-KVN; '[e-mail]' ([e-mail])
([e-mail])
Cc: Oracle-Google ([e-mail]); 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 ([e-mail]); DALVIK-KVN ([e-mail]); '[e-mail]'
([e-mail]) ([e-mail])
1

Cc: Oracle-Google ([e-mail]); 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 ([e-mail]); DALVIK-KVN ([e-mail]); '[e-mail]'
([e-mail]) ([e-mail])
Cc: Oracle-Google ([e-mail]); 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 
[e-mail] 

--------------------------------------------------------------------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
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
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 @mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

3