Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Filing 934

Statement ORACLES STATEMENT REGARDING MOTIONS TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED by Oracle America, Inc.. (Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 4/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

&

11
C A L I F O R N I A

S C H I L L E R
B O I E S ,

10

O A K L A N D ,

F L E X N E R

L L P

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[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]
ALANNA RUTHERFORD (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022
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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

22
23

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

24
25
26
27

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S STATEMENT REGARDING
MOTIONS TO DEEM ISSUES
UNDISPUTED

GOOGLE, INC.
Defendant.

Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

28
ORACLE’S STATEMENT RE: MOTIONS TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA

1

The Court requested that the parties brief whether the facts the parties have sought to establish

2

in their recently filed motions (Dkt. 861, 908) would be conclusive as to those facts, or simply

3

admissible as proof of those facts.

admissions conclusively binding on the party who made them.” Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp.,

9

861 F.2d 224, 226 (9th Cir. 1988) (emphasis supplied). This includes factual stipulations in trial
briefs. United States v. Davis, 332 F.3d 1163, 1168 (9th Cir. 2003). Judicial admissions “have the

11
C A L I F O R N I A

10

O A K L A N D ,

F L E X N E R

“Factual assertions in pleadings and pretrial orders, unless amended, are considered judicial

8

&

trial briefs. (Dkt. 908.) Google’s factual assertions in those pleadings are judicial admissions.

7

S C H I L L E R

footing. Oracle moved to deem admitted several factual assertions in Google’s counterclaims and

6

B O I E S ,

The facts and issues that the parties have moved to deem undisputed do not stand on equal

5

L L P

4

effect of withdrawing a fact from issue and dispensing wholly with the need for proof of the fact.”

12

Id.; see also NLRB v. Consolidated Bus. Transit, Inc. 577 F.3d 467, 475 (2nd Cir. 2009) (“admissions

13

contained in pleadings are binding even where the admitting party later produces contrary

14

evidence.”).

15

Three of the facts that Oracle moved to deem admitted are contained exclusively in Google’s

16

counterclaims—its pleadings. (Dkt. 908.) Those facts are unequivocal factual statements and should

17

be deemed judicially admitted. (Id. at C, D, and E.) In addition, Google admitted that the 37 Java

18

APIs meet the threshold for originality required by the Constitution in its trial brief, which, if not an

19

automatic judicial admission, may also be considered an admission at the discretion of the trial court.

20

Am. Title, 861 F.2d at 227. Indeed, Google advocated for its statement to be a judicial admission

21

when it asserted that originality need not be submitted to the jury at all. (Dkt. 908 at 1 (“The jury

22

therefore need not be asked to address whether the APIs are original.”).) Finally, while Google

23

admitted that the Java programming language is distinct from the Java class libraries in its pleadings

24

(its counterclaims), it admitted that the Java programming language is distinct from the APIs in its

25

expert report. (See Dkt. 908) Oracle does not oppose treating admissions in non-pleading

26

documents as simple evidentiary admissions, rather than judicial admissions. (Dkt. 908 at B.)

27

The two issues the Court has held “undisputed” (as Google put it in its motion) are not factual

28

judicial admissions. Each is a restatement of an issue of law, which may be why Google called them
1
ORACLE’S STATEMENT RE: MOTIONS TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA

Tr. at 12:17-25 (“we make no claim that that is a violation of our copyright rights”); March 28, 2012

6

Hrg. Tr. 81:2-9 (“So we don’t have to visit, in this case, the protectability of the programming

7

language, as such. And that’s why we make no claim about the protectability of the programming

8

language.”).) Oracle’s decision to bring the particular claim that it did is not a judicial admission.

9

Statements in oral argument about counsel’s conception of the legal theory of a case are not judicial
admissions. Glick v. White Motor Co., 458 F.2d 1287, 1291 (3d Cir. 1972). Treating Oracle’s

11
C A L I F O R N I A

10

O A K L A N D ,

F L E X N E R

not asserting that we own that programming language for purposes of this case”); Sept. 15, 2011 Hrg.

5

&

statements made during oral argument. (Dkt. 861; see also Feb. 9, 2011 Hrg. Tr. at 8:8-20 (“we’re

4

S C H I L L E R

a legal conclusion as to the asserted status of the Java programming language based entirely on

3

B O I E S ,

“issues” rather than “facts” in its motion. (See Dkt. 861.) First, Google moved to deem “undisputed”

2

L L P

1

statements as a judicial admission would be particularly prejudicial given that the Court has reserved

12

the question of whether the Java APIs and libraries should be considered part of the Java

13

programming language. Oracle has clearly and consistently disputed the proposition that Google was

14

free to use the Java APIs in the manner it did.

15

Oracle’s statements, moreover, are not “clear, deliberate, and unambiguous” factual

16

admissions that should be treated as judicial admissions. Robinson v. McNeil Consumer Healthcare,

17

615 F3d 861, 872 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that counsel’s statement in closing argument was not

18

“clear, deliberate, and unambiguous” and should not be treated as an admission; “[i]f plaintiff's

19

contention were accepted, statements in opening and closing arguments, in making objections, at side

20

bars, and in questioning witnesses would be treated as pleadings and searched for remarks that might

21

be construed as admissions though neither intended nor understood as such.”).

22

Similarly, the Court’s holdings as to the copyrightability of the API names should not be

23

given the status of a party judicial admission. Oracle has never admitted in any pleadings or any

24

other paper filed with the Court that the names of API files, packages, classes, and methods are not

25

protected by copyright.

26
27
28
2
ORACLE’S STATEMENT RE: MOTIONS TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA

1
2
3
4

Dated: April 16, 2012

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
By: /s/ Steven C. Holtzman
Steven C. Holtzman
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

5
6
7
8

&

11
C A L I F O R N I A

S C H I L L E R
B O I E S ,

10

O A K L A N D ,

F L E X N E R

L L P

9

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
ORACLE’S STATEMENT RE: MOTIONS TO DEEM ISSUES UNDISPUTED
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA