Oracle America, Inc. et al v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company

Filing 1264

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF COMCAST'S DETERMINATION ABOUT THE RIGHT TO PATCHES entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar. Signed May 30, 2022.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE
COMPANY,

11

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-01393-JST
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PERMIT INTRODUCTION OF
EVIDENCE OF COMCAST'S
DETERMINATION ABOUT THE
RIGHT TO PATCHES
Re: ECF No. 1261

12
13

Now before the Court is Defendant Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company’s (“HPE”)

14

Motion To Permit Introduction Of Evidence Of Comcast’s Determinations About The Right To

15

Patches. ECF No. 1261. Oracle has filed an opposition. ECF No. 1262. The Court will deny the

16

motion.

17

The proffered evidence is of weak probative value. For one thing, Comcast’s belief that it

18

could lawfully download and install Solaris patches without an Oracle support contract, if it had

19

that belief, derived from information Comcast received from Terix. See ECF No. 1261-3 at 12:10-

20

19 (setting forth witness Jennifer Yohe Wagner’s testimony that she did not know whether

21

Comcast independently believed that it had the right to access and download Solaris patches

22

independently of information it received from Terix). This after-the-fact evidence is unhelpful on

23

the question of what Comcast, much less any other customer, would have done in the absence of

24

Terix’s unlawful conduct. Also, while HPE argues that the evidence is relevant on the question of

25

intent, neither of the jury instructions HPE cites refers to the direct infringer’s intent. Ninth

26

Circuit Model Civil Instruction 17.21 refers to the defendant’s, i.e., HPE’s, intent, but not the

27

direct infringer’s; Instruction 17.20 does not refer to intent at all. Balanced against this low

28

probative value is the significant potential for undue prejudice, given that the might jury conclude

1

that Oracle’s license agreements permitted the downloading and installation of patches without a

2

support contract. Accordingly, the Court will exclude the evidence under Rule 403 of the Federal

3

Rules of Evidence.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 30, 2022
______________________ _______________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2