decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Oracle declines to press its motion to dismiss, so motion is dismissed - Updated - Scheduling Order
Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 02:11 AM EST

Oracle has filed a Reply Memorandum regarding its motion to dismiss or strike Google's invalidity counterclaim, some of Google's affirmative defenses, and some of Google's Answer, what Oracle called "impertinent matter", and it in essence said never mind. After Google's powerful filing the other day, I'm not surprised. But I'm also very glad to see Oracle take this step. If it has valid claims, it will be able to pursue them without nastiness. I'm really pleased to see what I would call progress.

So the judge has denied Oracle's motion, since it declines to press it, and the scheduled hearing on this motion, scheduled for December 2nd, is canceled.

Here's Oracle's filing:

11/16/2010 - ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by RWS on 11/16/10. (sgd, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2010) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

11/16/2010 - 54 - Reply Memorandum re 35 MOTION to Dismiss invalidity counterclaims MOTION to Strike 32 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim (motion to strike certain affirmative defenses and impertinent matter) MOTION to Strike 32 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim (motion to strike certain affirmative defenses and impertinent matter) filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 11/16/2010) (Entered: 11/16/2010)

And here's the meat of its position:
Taken together, these two measures – the invalidity contentions required by the local rules and the interrogatories we intend to serve – will call upon Google to detail the theories and facts underlying its pleading by mid-January, 2011. We are satisfied this will achieve the practical objective of giving us fair notice of what Google has in mind in defending this case. [...] For the foregoing reasons, while we could continue to make an issue out of Google’s pleadings, we decline to continue to press our motion to dismiss. We note that, in view of the Court’s schedule, if Google continues to hide the ball, we will have ample reason to seek additional recourse.
Oracle does argue that its motion is not moot, that the insufficiencies it identified are still there, and in fact made worse, as it explains in this footnote:
1 Not only does Google’s new pleading fail to correct the pre-existing deficiencies, it adds to them. Google now asserts eight new defenses (including that Oracle’s works are not copyrightable, that Oracle’s copyrights are unenforceable, that Google independently created the infringing work, and that Google’s copying is fair, de minimus, and the fault of unidentified third parties) and one new counterclaim (non-infringement of copyright). The new defenses and counterclaim are pled as insufficiently as the others.
But it says it should be able to get the information it needs sooner than by this motion, and so it doesn't choose to press forward. "The pace of the tentative case schedule mandates that we obtain early notice of Google’s theories, but we have alternative means of obtaining that." For example, Oracle will send Google interrogatories, and here's what the first one will read like:
Please explain the factual and legal bases for Google’s pleading of its first affirmative defense: No Patent Infringement.
There will be others similarly requiring Google to stop hiding the ball, as Oracle puts it:
For the foregoing reasons, while we could continue to make an issue out of Google’s pleadings, we decline to continue to press our motion to dismiss. We note that, in view of the Court’s schedule, if Google continues to hide the ball, we will have ample reason to seek additional recourse.
That's perfectly fair to say. I'd say we are back to a more normal tone. There is a dispute, and it needs to be resolved, but afterwards, Google and Oracle will need to be friends again, at least to the extent that they will no doubt want to work on similar issues from time to time.

Here's the judge's ruling:

11/17/2010 - 55 - ORDER DENYING ORACLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND STRIKE AND VACATING HEARING by Judge Alsup denying 35 Motion to Dismiss; denying 35 Motion to Strike (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/17/2010) (Entered: 11/17/2010)

And here's the meat of it, in fact the totality of it:
Oracle America, Inc. has “decline[d] to continue to press [its] motion” to dismiss Google Inc.’s invalidity counterclaims and strike certain affirmative defenses and impertinent matter, because required disclosures and discovery responses “will achieve the practical objective of giving [Oracle] fair notice of what Google has in mind in defending this case” (Reply 3). Accordingly, Oracle’s motion is DENIED. The hearing scheduled for December 2, 2010 is VACATED."
Update: Here's the scheduling order and what happened at the initial case management conference on the 18th:

11/18/2010 - 57 - Minute Entry: Initial Case Management Conference held on 11/18/2010 before William Alsup (Date Filed: 11/18/2010), Case referred to Private ADR. Jury Selection set for 10/31/2011 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Jury Trial set for 10/31/2011 07:30 AM. (Court Reporter Sahar McVickar.) (dt, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/18/2010) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

11/19/2010 - 56 - CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Case referred to private mediator. Private mediation must be completed thirty days after Markman order. Mediator must be on board by 12/31/2010. A tutorial for the Court (to be conducted by counsel only) shall be set for 4/6/2011 at 1:30 PM. Claims Construction Hearing set for 4/20/2011 01:30 PM. Discovery due by 7/29/2011. Jury Trial set for 10/31/2011 07:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Motions due by 9/8/2011. Pretrial Conference set for 10/17/2011 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 11/18/2010. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2010) (Entered: 11/19/2010)

So, supposedly the trial will happen on October 31, 2011, but don't bet on it. Meanwhile, there is mediation, and I wouldn't rely on that to settle this either, although I still hope for it.

  


Oracle declines to press its motion to dismiss, so motion is dismissed - Updated - Scheduling Order | 149 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 02:23 AM EST
It is often helpful to use 'wrong --> right' in the 'Title'.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 02:25 AM EST
Discussions about things unrelated to the main article. Please include clickable
links (and post in HTML) when appropriate.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 02:28 AM EST
Discussion about interesting items in the News Picks on the Groklaw home page.
Please clearly identify the item under discussion (clickable URL, posting in
HTML) - they tend to roll off the front page more quickly than the main
articles
do.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff
Authored by: MadTom1999 on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 02:31 AM EST
This is the thread for Comes links/posts.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If it has valid claims, it will be able to pursue them without nastiness.
Authored by: jmc on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 02:48 AM EST

...filed byOracle America, Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael)

Connected?

[ Reply to This | # ]

if Google continues to hide the ball
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 03:22 AM EST
The ball is Oracle's, and Google is not trying to hide it.

Same old, same old. Blame the other party.

These misinformation attacks are getting old.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Am I misinterpreting this, yet again?
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 05:19 AM EST
The 'hiding the ball' thing sounds so much like 'you know what you have done
wrong. Now, just point it out to us'.

Was it not Oracle that had to rush back with amended and more detailed
accusations when Google pointed out how inexplicit version 1. had been?

Now, they are demanding to know what Google's defences are going to be to
Oracle's vague accusations.

I wonder if Oracle came to the conclusion that their failure to point out how
Google were infringing on their patents and copyrights would lead to losing the
motion, outright.

IIRC, that bit about Google employing the original inventors of the patents and
being foreclosed on the invalidating of the patents relies on actual instances
of violating the patents. If those actual instances are not enumerated then how
can Google be foreclosed?

PJ looks for the good in folk. I find a failure to pull the trigger on the
footgun. Shows what a curmudgeon I am!

---
Regards
Ian Al
SCOG, what ever happened to them? Whatever, it was less than they deserve.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle declines to press its motion to dismiss, so motion is dismissed
Authored by: Wol on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 08:49 AM EST
Please explain the factual and legal bases for Google’s pleading of its first affirmative defense: No Patent Infringement.

To which Google will, hopefully, reply "before we reply to your interrogatory, you need to reply to ours - "Please explain the factual bases for your claim of Patent Infringement" ".

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | # ]

specifically, Google has the right to invalidate the patents?
Authored by: skidrash on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 02:58 PM EST
this was what really struck me in the Oracle motion - or am I getting the
motions mixed up?

They claimed that since some Sun staffers who were named in the patents now work
at Google, Google may not assert that the patents are invalid.

Is Oracle no longer asserting that Google may not claim patent invalidity?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle compaining about copyright affirmative defenses
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 18 2010 @ 05:39 PM EST
I find it interesting that Oracle's mad that Google's added affirmative defenses
for Copyright infringement. The only reason Google didn't have these in the
original response was that Oracle's original complaint didn't detail which
copyrights were at issue. Now that Google knows what Oracle's talking about,
Google has a chance of saying why it believes it did not infringe those
copyrights, including "uh, Oracle, your understanding of copyright is a
little weird and expansive," i.e., the noncopyrightability defense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle declines to press its motion to dismiss, so motion is dismissed
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 19 2010 @ 11:15 AM EST
The GPL is not a law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )