|
Oracle v. Google - Another Reason for Introducing Non-Final Reexamination Information |
|
Friday, December 30 2011 @ 09:30 AM EST
|
Sometimes you simply don't see all facets of an issue raised at trial. That was certainly the case for me when I read Oracle's letter (656 [PDF; Text]) supporting its motion in limine No. 1 to exclude non-final information from the USPTO reexaminations at trial. Non-final is non-final (meaning Oracle still has a right to appeal or challenge the rulings), and it would be unfair if such information were introduced at trial as evidence of invalidity.
What I didn't consider was that there would be a separate legitimate reason for introducing preliminary USPTO findings. That possibility didn't slip past Google, and it has now raised the point that, although such information should be excluded at the time the jury considers the issue of invalidity, the same information should be permitted later on the issue of willfulness. (660 [PDF; Text])
Citing to the case of Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor, Google points out:
... the court agreed with the defendant that because “the reexamination proceedings
here are far advanced and have not gone entirely well for the patentee . . . it would be unfair to
[the defendant] to make a determination that it acted willfully . . . without even considering the
possibility that the PTO may, in the end, invalidate one or more of [plaintiff’s] asserted patent
claims.” Id. at 689.
As Google further points out, Judge Alsup has already ordered a trifurcated trial with the issue of willfulness not being raised until the third phase. Thus, Google should be permitted to introduce this evidence to show it did not act willfully because it had good cause to doubt the validity of the Oracle patents based on the granting of the reexaminations by the USPTO and the findings in those reexaminations, even if such findings are not final. Such an approach, in Google's view, does not prejudice Oracle.
Google also raises two points with respect to the two cases cited by Oracle as "new" in the Oracle letter: Presidio Components and Realtime Data. First, contrary to Oracle's statement in its December 27 letter, neither of these cases is new since Oracle had already referenced them in earlier filings and could have included them in their brief pertaining to their motion in limine No. 1.
Second, those two cases don't address the issue at hand because they dealt with unitary trials, i.e., all issues were dealt with at once, not in sequenced phases. As such, those cases could not provide a mechanism for avoiding the prejudice to the plaintiff. Since the Oracle v. Google trial is to be trifurcated, the mechanism to avoid prejudice is available here.
Anticipate that Judge Alsup will grant Oracle's motion, since Google does not challenge the fundamental principle of prejudice of introducing preliminary reexamination information on the issue of validity, but also anticipate that Judge Alsup will qualify the order by permitting the later introduction of the preliminary reexamination information on the issue of willfulness in phase three of the trial.
**********
Docket
660 - Filed and Effective: 12/28/2011
Letter
Document Text: Letter
from Robert Van Nest to the Court in opposition to Oracle's Motion in
Limine No. 1. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Case
Attachment)(Van Nest, Robert) [GROKLAW NOTE: The information provided in Attachment 1 consists of the case report of Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor, 763 F. Supp. 2d 671 (D. Del. 2010). Because the document submitted by the Keker firm is a reprint from Westlaw and contains proprietary Keycite and numbering information, we have elected to provide an alternative source for the same information.]
***********
Document
660
[Keker & Van Nest LLP letterhead]
December 28, 2011
Honorable William Alsup
U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
Courtroom 8 – 19th Floor
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-cv-03561 WHA
Dear Judge Alsup:
Google wishes to bring to the Court’s attention an additional case relevant to Oracle’s Motion in
Limine No. 1 to Exclude Evidence or Argument Regarding Patent Reexaminations (Dkt. No.
498).
In Power Integrations v. Fairchild Semiconductor, 763 F. Supp. 2d 671 (D. Del. 2010), the court
specifically addressed the relationship between the admissibility of PTO re-examinations and
furcated trials. In considering the admissibility of PTO re-examinations in what was then a
unitary trial, the court agreed with the defendant that because “the reexamination proceedings
here are far advanced and have not gone entirely well for the patentee . . . it would be unfair to
[the defendant] to make a determination that it acted willfully . . . without even considering the
possibility that the PTO may, in the end, invalidate one or more of [plaintiff’s] asserted patent
claims.” Id. at 689. The court also acknowledged, however, that “there is a substantial risk of
confusion and unfair prejudice if a jury deciding issues of infringement and validity is presented
with the full record of the ongoing reexamination proceedings.” Id. (emphasis added). To
“[b]alance[e] these competing concerns,” the court bifurcated the trial, “sever[ing] the issue of
willful infringement for a separate trial.” Id. In so doing, the court stated that “[e]vidence of the
pending reexaminations may be admissible at the willfulness trial,” although it deferred deciding
the issue. Id. The trial in Power Integrations is scheduled for 2012.
The court’s analysis in Power Integrations supports Google’s position that admitting the PTO reexamination
evidence in the third phase of this case, after liability issues such as validity and
infringement have been decided, would eliminate the risk of unfair prejudice to Oracle. As
Google noted in its Opposition to Oracle’s Motion in Limine No. 1, the primary purpose for
which Google seeks to admit the evidence of the PTO re-examinations is in defending against
Honorable William Alsup
December 28, 2011
Page 2
Oracle’s willfulness allegations — a phase-three issue that will be relevant only if the jury finds
patent liability in phase two. As in Power Integrations, “the reexamination proceedings here are
far advanced and have not gone entirely well for the patentee.” Id. at 689; see also 12/7/11
Supp. Joint Pretrial Conference Stmt., Dkt. No. 644 at 1-3 (PTO has currently rejected eighty
percent of the asserted claims where it has issued office actions); 12/23/11 Joint Update on Re-
Examination of 476 Patent, Dkt. No. 655. Thus, it would be unfair if Google cannot counter
Oracle’s allegations of scienter with evidence of the re-examination proceedings. See Power
Integrations, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 689. This is particularly true in light of the PTO statistics
discussed at the pre-trial conference, which reflect that, historically, claims are all canceled or at
least in part changed 77% of the time for ex parte re-examinations and 89% of the time for inter
partes re-examinations. See http://www.uspto.gov/patents/stats/reexamination_information.jsp
(linking to statistics for ex parte and inter partes re-examination statistics).
The two cases Oracle cites in its December 27, 2011 letter to the Court are not new authority.
Oracle already cited both in its Motion in Limine No. 1. See Oracle Motion in Limine No. 1 at
3:14-25 (citing and quoting Presidio Components Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.,
No. 08-CV-335-IEG (NLS), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106795 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2009), and
Declaration of Daniel P. Muino in Support of Oracle America, Inc.’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1
Through 5 (“Muino Decl.”), Exhibit A (Dkt. No. 503-1), Realtime Data, LLC v. Packeteer, Inc.,
No. 6:08-cv-144 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2009)); see also Google’s Opposition to Oracle’s Motion in
Limine No. 1 at 4:19-24 (distinguishing these cases). Moreover, Realtime Data and Presidio
Components are not as on-point as Power Integrations because they only address unitary trials,
which present a different prejudice analysis than a trifurcated trial such as this one. Realtime
Data excluded evidence of PTO re-examinations based on the unfair prejudice that could arise if
a jury considering infringement and validity were presented with the re-examination evidence.
Muino Decl., Exhibit A, Realtime Data at 4 (“Even if the jury is instructed to consider the Office
Action for the limited purpose of assessing objective recklessness, there is a strong likelihood
that the jury would be confused as to its relevance and use this evidence in considering the
validity of the ‘104 patent.” (emphasis added)). Presidio Components never specified the
relevant “unfair prejudice” at all. Presidio Components, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106795. As
Power Integrations suggests, any concern that unfair prejudice could arise if evidence of PTO reexaminations
were submitted to a jury deciding validity and infringement would be eliminated
by admitting evidence of the PTO re-examinations only in the third phase of this trial, after
issues of validity and infringement have already been decided.
Sincerely,
/s/ Robert A. Van Nest
Robert A. Van Nest
|
|
Authored by: maroberts on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 09:49 AM EST |
All mishtakes here please [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stegu on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 10:24 AM EST |
Discussions on current news picks go here.
Please include a clicky to the article.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 10:26 AM EST |
Ah, now that makes sense.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 11:03 AM EST |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- BC Court of Appeal - electronically stored version, is as much a document as paper version - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 11:25 AM EST
- Baboons prefer Visual Basic...and can't handle Java. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 11:47 AM EST
- Baboons prefer Visual Basic...and can't handle Java. - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 11:55 AM EST
- Baboons prefer Visual Basic...and can't handle Java. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 12:02 PM EST
- and why shouldn't they? - Authored by: hAckz0r on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 12:06 PM EST
- OK, first problem with this study... - Authored by: dacii on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 12:24 PM EST
- Come now.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 01:51 PM EST
- It's all an old joke - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 06:03 PM EST
- Sorry..... - Authored by: dacii on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 08:34 PM EST
- Sorry..... - Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 10:16 PM EST
- Sorry..... - Authored by: J.F. on Saturday, December 31 2011 @ 12:23 PM EST
- Sorry..... - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 01 2012 @ 11:43 AM EST
- Sorry..... - Authored by: kjs on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 10:27 PM EST
- Baboons prefer Visual Basic...and can't handle Java. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 12:41 PM EST
- I loved the part about report writing in the faq. - Authored by: jsoulejr on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 12:53 PM EST
- Hats off to the Public Relations Director - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 04:06 PM EST
- Bill prefers Basic..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 09:11 PM EST
- Happy Belated April Fools Day - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 03 2012 @ 08:04 AM EST
- "The only perfect product in the history of technology was Microsoft Bob" - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 01:52 PM EST
- Righthaven.com up for bid - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 05:39 PM EST
- "Microsoft Linux 11.2 Gnome 64bits" - Authored by: jheisey on Saturday, December 31 2011 @ 12:37 AM EST
- Nintendo, Sony and EA drop SOPA support. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 31 2011 @ 01:42 AM EST
- Red Accuses Rival Arri of Corporate Espionage - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 01 2012 @ 01:24 PM EST
- SMS Silent Tracker Ping - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 01 2012 @ 01:51 PM EST
- ARS article on Android "Fragmentation" - Authored by: dacii on Sunday, January 01 2012 @ 05:34 PM EST
- Hackers Said to be Planning to Launch Own Satellites to Combat Censorship - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 01 2012 @ 08:31 PM EST
- Off Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2012 @ 11:17 AM EST
- Montana High Court Says 'Citizens United' Does Not Apply In Big Sky State - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 02 2012 @ 11:22 AM EST
- An Incredible Story - Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, January 02 2012 @ 12:17 PM EST
- Transformer Prime Bootloader Locked - Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, January 03 2012 @ 01:36 AM EST
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 11:04 AM EST |
:-D
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 11:30 AM EST |
.
Can't the patent challenges also be used on the issue of damages?
The damage assessors calculate based on presumptive complete validity of
asserted patents. If during the challenged period of infringement these patents
issued by the notorious USPTO are subject to challenge, challenged and indeed
compromised during the process, shouldn't the damage assessors opine on the
impact such challenges have on their bottom lines?
The reputation of the USPTO, the number of poor patents, a process where it is
not reviewed, and decades of software before they were patentable should all
factor in to damage assessment.
.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 30 2011 @ 12:12 PM EST |
"In Giovano v. Romeo, a Florida appeals court has
affirmed dismissal of a
case in which ripoffreport.com had
published an admittedly false and defamatory
posting by one
of its users, on the ground that under the Communications
Decency Act -- 47 USC 230 -- the site is immune from suit
for postings by its
users as a provider of an "interactive
computer service" within the meaning of
the statute".
link
link[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, January 01 2012 @ 07:59 PM EST |
Due to personal circumstances, I was unable to observe the passing of the old
year at the traditional time; I now sit, champagne in hand, and look back at the
past twelve months here on Groklaw.
The big news of the year around here
had to be the affirmation of the Novell trial jury verdict (and subsequent bench
rulings) by the Tenth Circuit. But we also saw Sony go after George Hotz for
showing people how to unlock their PS3's, Novell try to sell patents to a
Microsoft-led consortium, a less-than-satisfying ruling on patents in the
Supreme Court in In Re Bilski, and The SCO Group sell off its UNIX
business to unXis and become indisputably a litigation company. We also saw PJ
step back from the day-to-day running of Groklaw and Mark Webbink step up and
carry the load (thanks, Mark!).
We enter into 2012 with patent battles on
several fronts, with more showing up each and every day. So to my fellow Groklaw
denizens, I wish a safe and happy 2012, and I wish you strength and persistence
in fighting the good fight.
Oh, yes... and belated though it is, please
don't drink and drive. Let's all try to be around for the next New Year's
Day.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Thanks man - Authored by: BJ on Monday, January 02 2012 @ 05:40 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 04 2012 @ 07:15 PM EST |
It's interesting that the new case (packeteer) that oracle cites is from the
notorious eastern district of Texas. Do patent cases from that district have
more, or less, weight with judges in other districts, given the ED Texas rep?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|