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
rvannest@kvn.com
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON, #184325
canderson@kvn.com
DANIEL PURCELL, #191424
dpurcell@kvn.com
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Tel: 415.391.5400
Fax: 415.397.7188
KING & SPALDING LLP
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. - #112279
fzimmer@kslaw.com
CHERYL A. SABNIS - #224323
csabnis@kslaw.com
101 Second Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.318.1200
Fax: 415.318.1300
KING & SPALDING LLP
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER
(Pro Hac Vice)
sweingaertner@kslaw.com
ROBERT F. PERRY
rperry@kslaw.com
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
1185 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Tel: 212.556.2100
Fax: 212.556.2222
IAN C. BALLON - #141819
ballon@gtlaw.com
HEATHER MEEKER - #172148
meekerh@gtlaw.com
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1900 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Tel: 650.328.8500
Fax: 650.328-8508
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
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?