|
|
| Oracle v. Google - Google Knocks Another (Minor) Chip Out of Oracle |
 |
|
Monday, September 05 2011 @ 08:00 AM EDT
|
Two weeks ago Google won the right to file a motion for summary judgment on Oracle's affirmative defense of assignor estoppel. As we explained at that time, Oracle was arguing that, since Google now employs some of the named inventors in the patents Oracle is asserting against Google, Google should be precluded from challenging the validity of those patents.
Oracle has now decided to throw in the towel on that defense by agreeing to stipulate to its dismissal with prejudice, i.e., they cannot reassert this defense again in this case. 387 [PDF] This is not that big a deal. There was almost no chance that Oracle was going to be successful with the assignor estoppel defense (their attempt to apply it in this case went far beyond anything any court has allowed). Nevertheless, it knocks one more issue off the table. Note that the dismissal with prejudice on this defense is not final until the judge enters the order, but given the parties have agreed to the stipulation, that is a mere formality.
Editorial Comment: With this stipulation essentially in place, I would like to make a few observations about this whole concept of former employees, assignor estoppel, and willful infringement. Despite what some are speculating, whether the employer/infringer is Google, Apple, Oracle, Microsoft, or whoever, the simple fact that someone worked in an area of technology with their old employer (the plaintiff) is simply not a sufficient nexus to support either an assignor estoppel defense or a finding of willful infringement. You need far more than that, and far more than that has yet to be established in the instant case (Oracle v. Google). It would be nice, for a change, if the prophets of doom for Android would focus on what has been proven (or not proven) instead of speculating on hypothetical outcomes.
***********
Docket
387 -
Filed & Entered: 09/02/2011
Stipulation
Docket Text: STIPULATION and [Proposed] Order Regarding Oracle America,
Inc.'s First Affirmative Defense-Assignor Estoppel by Google Inc..
(Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 9/2/2011)
**************
Document
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.
CASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA (DMR)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING ORACLE
AMERICA, INC.’S
FIRST
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE –
ASSIGNOR ESTOPPEL
Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
STIPULATION
WHEREAS, Oracle in its Amended Complaint alleged that “Android
(including without limitation the Dalvik VM and the Android software
development kit) and devices that operate Android infringe one or more
claims of each of United States Patents Nos. 6,125,447; 6,192,476;
5,966,702; 7,426,720; RE38,104; 6,910,205” (Dkt. No. 36);
WHEREAS, Google in its Answer to Oracle’s Amended Complaint and Amended
Counterclaims alleged the invalidity of the seven patents-in-suit (Dkt.
No. 51);
WHEREAS, Oracle in its Answer to Google’s Amended Counterclaims alleged
that the doctrine of assignor estoppel barred Google’s assertion of
invalidity based on Google’s employment of and being in privity with
some of the inventors of the seven patents-in-suit (Dkt. No. 60);
WHEREAS, Google filed a précis letter seeking leave of the Court to file
a motion for partial summary judgment on Oracle America, Inc.’s First
Affirmative Defense of assignor estoppel (Dkt. No. 309);
WHEREAS, evidence obtained in discovery taken to date shows that Google
employs or has employed James Gosling, named inventor of U.S. Reissue
Patent No. RE38,104; Frank Yellin, a named inventor of U.S. Patent No.
6,061,520; and Lars Bak and Robert Greisemer, named inventors of U.S.
Patent No. 6,910,205;
WHEREAS, based on evidence obtained in discovery taken to date, it
appears that none of James Gosling, Frank Yellin, Lars Bak, and Robert
Greisemer are an executive, officer, or substantial shareholder of
Google and that none provided substantial “knowledge and assistance to
develop any aspects of the accused Dalvik Virtual Machine or of the
Android SDK that allegedly infringe the patents that those inventors
assigned to Sun,” as Google wrote in its précis letter;
WHEREAS, Google argued in its précis letter that “[a]ssignor estoppel
would be appropriate only if Google’s alleged infringement depended upon
the engineers’ knowledge and assistance;”
WHEREAS, the Court granted Google leave to file a motion for partial
summary judgment on plaintiff’s affirmative defense of assignor
estoppel, but also noted that “Plaintiff’s counsel remain free to
negotiate a stipulated resolution of this issue.” (Dkt. No. 325.)
NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE that:
1. Oracle’s First Affirmative Defense (Assignor Estoppel) as against
Google Inc. shall be dismissed with prejudice.
ORDER
The foregoing stipulation is approved, and IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date:
Honorable William H. Alsup
Judge of the United States District Court
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 08:04 AM EDT |
| Please point out the issue in the title of you post. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 08:05 AM EDT |
| For all posts that are not on topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Spamhaus case - $3 awarded - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- Upgrading to Oneiric 11.10 Beta 1 – Dealing with Zeitgeist (zeitgeist kills kittens as well) - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 12:36 PM EDT
- Personal Details, Google,Facebook etc and Advertisers - Authored by: complex_number on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 12:44 PM EDT
- Oracle retires the DLJ? - Authored by: Ribbit on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 02:12 PM EDT
- A bit overboard? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 02:34 PM EDT
- A bit overboard? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 05:06 PM EDT
- You can't believe everything you read on the interwebs... But this is sickenly real - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 09:01 PM EDT
- Microsoft aided former Tunisian regime - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 06 2011 @ 12:43 AM EDT
- a death sentence to the dual boot? - Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, September 06 2011 @ 05:10 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Kilz on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 08:06 AM EDT |
Please mention the name of the news story in the title of
your post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stegu on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
Please keep them coming. We're getting there.
(If you wonder what this thread is about,
please have a look at the COMES link to
the far left on the main page.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 09:00 AM EDT |
As a technology worker, I'm very gratified to see this knocked out, mostly
because of the absolute chaos it would create for tech hiring (and my future
prospects) if this had been recognized by the court as a valid legal theory.
If this theory was accepted, I can't imagine any tech company hiring a new
employee without first asking for all the patents they've been a named inventor
on. Then the company would have to run every patent by legal and ask "is
there any way we'd ever have a need to challenge this in court?" and get a
decision before agreeing to hire. And since so many patents are so broad, the
answer might well be "sorry--we can't agree to never challenge that."
Thank you for your interest.
I have a hard time seeing anyone who's a named inventor on pretty much anything
having an easy career transition again.
Though I suppose, as a way to discourage software patents, having developers
shout back "hell, no!" when the company lawyer suggests they patent
their invention would be an interesting way to accomplish it...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stegu on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
> It would be nice, for a change, if the prophets of doom
> for Android would focus on what has been proven (or not
> proven) instead of speculating on hypothetical outcomes.
If they did that, they would not find any doomsday
angles for their reports. I think we need to realize
that there are many people out there who have absolutely
no intention to report in an accurate, balanced manner
about this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 10:06 AM EDT |
Oracle's request seems truly bizarre to me. Whether a patent is valid or invalid
most certainly depends on the contents of the patents, not on who is currently
employing the named inventor. There _might_ be an argument that if I have a
patent to my name, I sell it to you, and then turn around and try to invalidate
it,
then I might have done something not entirely honest somewhere along the
way.
But that wouldn't affect whether the patent is valid or invalid. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cricketjeff on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 11:33 AM EDT |
Probably has a much more powerful weapon in a patent case than the courts ...
Dear Patent Office
I (Ian Ventor ex employee of T.R.Olls) would like my name removed from the
patent, I only agreed to agreed to submit the patent in its current form under
threat of losing employment, I do not believe, not did I ever believe there is
any original thought behind it ...
Now you could be sued by your ex-employer for slander, for fraud (possibly) and
by the patent office for perjury, but they are all pretty unlikely and in any
case it would be bloody tricky for the patent office to ignore such a statement!
---
There is nothing in life that doesn't look better after a good cup of tea.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 05 2011 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
...what exactly does that mean in this context? Does it mean
Google gets to ask for court costs for defending itself from
this little ruse?
Gringo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
