Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 924

RESPONSE (re #922 MOTION to Exclude Evidence Regarding License, Implied License, and Equitable Estoppel Defenses ) filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Van Nest, Robert) (Filed on 4/15/2012)

EXHIBIT A

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
ROBERT A. VAN NEST, #84065
[e-mail]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON, #184325
[e-mail]
DANIEL PURCELL, #191424
[e-mail]
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
[e-mail]
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
[e-mail]
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[e-mail]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

IAN C. BALLON - #141819
[e-mail]
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
[e-mail]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

20
21

v.

22

GOOGLE INC.,

23
24

Defendant.

Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
DECLARATION OF ROBERT VAN
NEST IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE
INC.’S OPPOSITION TO ORACLE
AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE REGARDING
LICENSE, IMPLIED LICENSE, AND
EQUITABLE ESTOPPEL DEFENSES
Dept.:
Judge:

Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Hon. William Alsup

25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ROBERT VAN NEST IN SUPPORT OF
GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
649406

1
2

I, ROBERT VAN NEST, declare as follows:
1.

I am a partner with the law firm of Keker & Van Nest LLP, counsel to Google

3

Inc. (“Google”) in the present case. I submit this declaration in support of Google’s Opposition

4

to Oracle America, Inc.’s (“Oracle”) Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding License, Implied

5

License, and Equitable Estoppel Defenses (“Motion”). I have knowledge of the facts set forth

6

herein, and if called to testify as a witness thereto could do so competently under oath.

7

2.

On April 15, 2012, starting at approximately 1:00 pm, Bruce Baber and I met and

8

conferred with Michael Jacobs, counsel for Oracle, by telephone regarding the parties’ opening

9

statement presentations, which we had exchanged the day before. Daniel Muino, counsel for

10
11

Oracle, may also have been in attendance for some or all of the call.
3.

During our call, Mr. Jacobs stated that Oracle had “in the works” a motion in

12

limine attacking Google’s equitable defenses, and that Oracle “might” file the motion if Oracle

13

had the motion ready in time.

14
15
16

4.

Mr. Jacobs did not identify which equitable defenses Oracle might attack or the

relief that Oracle would seek in the motion.
5.

Mr. Jacobs did not identify the basis for any motion, other than referencing

17

Google’s interrogatory answers and objecting to Google’s inclusion in its opening presentation

18

of excerpts from an official Sun Microsystems blog authored by its then Chief Executive Officer,

19

Jonathan Schwartz (TX 2352). Among other things, that blog post congratulates Google on its

20

announcement of Android, and says that “Google and the Open Handset Alliance just strapped

21

another set of rockets to the [Java] community’s momentum.”

22
23
24

6.

Oracle did not provide written notice, prior to 3:00 pm, of its intent to file its

Motion, as required by Paragraph 3 of Court’s Order Regarding Trial Procedures (Dkt. No. 890).
7.

Shortly after 6:00 pm on April 15, 2012, I received notice via the Court’s ECF

25

system that Oracle filed its Motion. The notice states, “The following transaction was entered by

26

Jacobs, Michael on 4/15/2012 at 6:01 PM and filed on 4/15/2012.”

27
28

649406

8.

At 6:54 pm, Daniel Muino wrote to state Oracle’s belief that that my conversation
1
DECLARATION OF ROBERT VAN NEST IN SUPPORT OF
GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA

1

with Mr. Jacobs “suffices” as written notice in accordance with the Court’s Order. A copy of

2

Mr. Muino’s email is attached to Google’s opposition brief as Exhibit B.

3
4

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed at San Francisco, California on April 15, 2012.

5
6
7

By:

/s/ Robert Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF ROBERT VAN NEST IN SUPPORT OF
GOOGLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STRIKE
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
649406