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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

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 v. Google - No Reconsideration for Oracle
Friday, October 07 2011 @ 08:00 AM EDT

Just as quickly as Oracle served up its précis letter [PDF; text] requesting permission to file a motion to reconsider, Judge Alsup has swatted it back across the net with a passing shot [486 (PDF; text)]. Too little (did not show good cause) and too late (not timely). So the limits are set on Oracle's infringement contentions.

In the only other filing of the day [487 (PDF; text)] the parties stipulated to new deadlines in preparation for trial.

*************

Docket

486 – Filed and Effective: 10/05/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER DENYING PRECIS REQUEST re 479 Letter filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 5, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

487 – Filed and Effective: 10/05/2011
ORDER
Document Text: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE CERTAIN PRE-TRIAL MATERIALS by Google Inc. (Kamber, Matthias) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)

488 – Filed and Effective: 10/06/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER REGARDING ATTENDANCE AT FINAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 5, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2011) (Entered: 10/05/2011)


*************

Documents

486

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER DENYING PRÉCIS REQUEST

Oracle America, Inc. “request[s] leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the ‘Section 1 — Accused Products’ portion of the Court’s Order partially granting Google’s motion to strike portions of Prof. Mitchell’s report (Dkt. No. 464), or in the alternative, to supplement Oracle’s infringement contentions as to accused products” (Dkt. No. 479). Google Inc. opposes this request (Dkt. No. 485). It is DENIED.

First, Oracle has not shown good cause for reconsideration. Civil Local Rule 7-9 enumerates three permissible grounds for reconsideration, including “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such order” (emphasis added). Oracle “submits that new material law exists in that the Court’s ruling does not distinguish between the infringement contention requirements for a party’s infringement and for indirect infringement” (Dkt. No. 479 at 1). Oracle, however, identifies no new law that emerged after the order issued on September 26, 2011. Oracle acknowledges that the applicable version of the Patent Local Rules went into effect in December 2009, and Oracle cites no new decision

interpreting those rules. Instead, Oracle simply offers its own interpretation of the Patent Local Rules, arguing that the disclosure requirements are more lax for allegations of indirect versus direct infringement. Oracle could have, but did not, make this argument in opposition to Google’s motion to strike. A new, untimely argument by the losing party is not a permissible ground for reconsideration.

Second, Oracle will not be allowed to amend its infringement contentions on the eve of trial. As recounted in the September 26 order, Oracle was warned that it would not be given late opportunities to cure defects in its disclosures. Patent Local Rule 3-6 allows amendment of infringement contentions only “upon a timely showing of good cause” (emphasis added). The time for amending infringement contentions has long passed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 5, 2011.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2


488

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

No. C 10-03561 WHA (DMR)

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE CERTAIN PRE-TRIAL MATERIALS

Judge: Honorable William Alsup

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order, the parties are to file the joint pretrial order, joint jury instructions, joint special verdict forms, joint proposed voir dire questions, motions in limine, joint exhibit list, witness lists, and trial briefs on October 7, 2011;

WHEREAS, the parties have been meeting and conferring in an attempt to work out their differences in the various components of the filing;

WHEREAS, the parties have been successful in resolving some of their differences, and anticipate that further differences could be resolved and areas of dispute narrowed with additional time to meet and confer on the issues, thereby reducing the number of disputed issues to be resolved at the pre-trial conference;

WHEREAS, the Court has indicated that the pre-trial conference that was scheduled for October 17, 2011, will be moved to the afternoon of October 24, 2011; and

WHEREAS, the parties acknowledge and agree that a limited extension of time to file certain of the pre-trial materials will not affect, delay, or push back any other deadlines in this case.

NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE AND AGREE that:

  1. The parties will continue to meet and confer over the next several days to resolve issues that can be resolved and narrow areas of dispute, and thereafter file the joint pretrial order, joint jury instructions, joint special verdict forms, joint proposed voir dire questions, and trial briefs on October 12, 2011.

  2. The joint exhibit list, motions in limine and oppositions, and witness lists will be filed as scheduled on October 7, 2011.

  3. No other deadlines in this case will be affected by the foregoing extensions. The parties will not use these extensions to argue for a delay of the trial date or any other deadlines in this case.

1

ORDER

The foregoing stipulation is approved, and IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 6, 2011

/s/William Alsup
Honorable William Alsup
Judge of the United States District Court

[Attorneys not listed on proposed order]

  


Oracle v. Google - No Reconsideration for Oracle | 332 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Faster than the Speed of Light
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2011 @ 08:20 AM EDT
Some months back there was a discussion concerning the speed
of light.

In that discussion I asserted that the speed of light could
possible be exceeded because physics has no theory of time.

Those who disageed may have interest in the following.

Gone in 60 nanoseconds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/gone-in-60-
nanoseconds/2011/10/06/gIQAf1RERL_story.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections thread
Authored by: SteveRose on Friday, October 07 2011 @ 08:23 AM EDT
Use the title please
e.g. rite -> right

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Friday, October 07 2011 @ 08:24 AM EDT
Please mention the story in the title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: SteveRose on Friday, October 07 2011 @ 08:25 AM EDT
Please stay off-topic in this thread

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Transcripts
Authored by: SteveRose on Friday, October 07 2011 @ 08:30 AM EDT
Comes contributions go here please.

Preferably use Plain Old Text mode to post HTML markup, to
make things easier for PJ and Mark (to copy/paste).

---
The bars I'm admitted to, serve drinks. Home's Microsoft-free - I value security
and reliability, and I've watched their bad behaviour from the start.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle's tactics.
Authored by: complex_number on Friday, October 07 2011 @ 08:35 AM EDT
Second, Oracle will not be allowed to amend its infringement contentions on the eve of trial. As recounted in the September 26 order, Oracle was warned that it would not be given late opportunities to cure defects in its disclosures. Patent Local Rule 3-6 allows amendment of infringement contentions only “upon a timely showing of good cause” (emphasis added). The time for amending infringement contentions has long passed.

Ouch!
Swatted down like a fly.

It will get interesting if they try to get these included on the sly during the trial. Let's hope that the Google team (as well as the Judge) are on the ball here...

---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?

[ Reply to This | # ]

A reference table would be better
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 07 2011 @ 11:23 AM EDT
It would be better if one could volunteer and show us exactly how Oracle was
trying to change its claims. If put in table form i.e. with columns 'prior' and
'now' would even be better.

IANAL but Oracle would have convinced me. Their argument seemed quite
persuasive, though in challenging Oracle, Google were not that 'wrong' either. I
guess being a judge is a tough job.

[ 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 ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds