decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook


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

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Oracle v. Google - Google On The Hot Seat On Marking Issue
Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 07:00 AM EST

Judge Alsup has considered the joint submission by the parties on the subject of patent marking as well as their supplemental filings (706 [PDF; Text]), and he has come out firing at Google. In a strongly worded order (707 [PDF; Text]) the court has strongly criticized Google for failing to live up to its obligations under the joint stipulation entered by the parties with respect to evidence of patent marking, declaring it:

[I]t is manifestly clear that Google failed to comply with its own stipulated procedure.
Fortunately for Google, they will get another opportunity to comply.

In the order, Judge Alsup states that Oracle has complied with its disclosure obligations. While that may technically be true, those disclosures are woefully inadequate to achieve the ends desired by the court. The court wanted to nail down the contentions of the parties on the front end, but that simply isn't going to happen with this process.

Quite frankly, the order Judge Alsup issued back in December that began this process, along with the stipulation entered by the parties on how to carry out the process, are fundamentally flawed. Of what use is it if Oracle simply points to a code segment and contends that it discloses all of the elements of an asserted claim if they do not demonstrate what specifically supports that contention? To then require Google to respond in the specific to such a broad assertion by Oracle shifts the burden of proof away from Oracle and onto Google. But that is, in effect, what Judge Alsup is doing here when he states:

Google’s response will specify which Oracle products it contends do (or do not) practice the asserted claims, and why. [emphasis added]
Noticeably, those two words "and why" are missing from the the first step of the stipulation directed to Oracle. Here, again, are those first two steps from the stipulation:

1. On January 6, 2012, Oracle will provide an identification, for each of the 26 asserted claims, of each Oracle product, Oracle-licensed product, Sun product, or Sun-licensed product (“Oracle Products”) that practice or have practiced the claim. Oracle will also identify the fact witnesses who possess information supporting Oracle’s contentions that the Oracle Products practice or have practiced the asserted claims, as well as provide a summary of testimony Oracle intends to elicit at trial from those witnesses regarding those Oracle Products’ practice of the claims. Oracle will also provide source code citations and/or other documentation supporting Oracle’s contentions that the Oracle Products practice the asserted claims.

2. On January 20, 2012, Google will respond to Oracle and identify any other Oracle Products that Google contends practiced any of the 26 asserted claims during the alleged damages period and identify any products in Oracle’s identification that Google contends do not practice the identified claims. Google’s response will specify which Oracle Products it contends do (or do not) practice the asserted claims, and why.

Excluding the "and why" provision in Oracle's step and while including it in Google's would appear to create a different standard for proof. Oracle can contend in the general, i.e., simply providing a code segment reference, while Google is obligated to respond in the specific, i.e., showing why the code segment does not embody the asserted patent claim.

Google has no one to blame but itself for this difference in language, and by their response it is clear that they thought the standard of showing was the same for both parties. Well, not in Judge Alsup's mind.

If there is an upside to all of this for Google, it's that they are being provided a second chance to respond even if it is on a short timeline. Judge Alsup also did not totally let Oracle off the hook in that he is allowing Google to show how Oracle has failed to produce evidence supporting its contentions that it properly marked.

This new round is almost certain to produce new fireworks as, in his final directive, Judge Alsup has ordered the parties to meet and confer for the purpose of producing a joint stipulation by February 21. Don't expect the parties to agree on much.



707 – Filed and Effective: 1/31/2012
Document Text: ORDER REGARDING PATENT MARKING DISPUTE re 706 Statement filed by Google Inc., Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 31, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2012) (Entered: 01/31/2012)






No. C 10-03561 WHA



In the order denying Google’s motion for partial summary judgment on its patent marking defense, the Court expressed concern that disputes over which Oracle or Sun products practiced the asserted claims, and therefore required marking, would devolve into an “infringement” type analysis at trial. In order to streamline the issue for trial, the parties were required to devise a fully agreeable procedure to identify and stipulate to the Oracle or Sun products that practiced the asserted claims. The parties filed a joint, stipulated procedure (Dkt. No. 661).

Now, it is manifestly clear that Google failed to comply with its own stipulated procedure. Pursuant to the first step in the joint procedure, Oracle submitted a list of Oracle and Sun products that practiced each of the asserted patents, the supporting source-code citations for each product, and summary of testimony it intended to elicit at trial in support of these identifications. Pursuant to the next step in the joint procedure, Google was required, by January 20, to:

respond to Oracle and identify any other Oracle products that Google contends practiced any of the 26 asserted claims during the alleged damages period and identify any products in Oracle’s identification that Google contends do not practice the identified claims. Google’s response will specify which Oracle products it contends do (or do not) practice the asserted claims, and why.

Google failed to do so. Instead, Google merely objected to Oracle’s testimonial evidence and complained that it did not have time to analyze the source-code citations provided. Google did not independently analyze and address each product identified by Oracle. Nor did Google identify any other products that practiced the asserted claims.

Google is hereby ordered to stand and deliver on its end of the bargain. For each product identified by Oracle, Google shall independently analyze whether that product practiced the asserted claims. Google cannot merely object to Oracle’s evidence. Note well that Google is the one who raised the patent marking defense and presumably has its own evidence to show which Sun or Oracle products fell within the asserted claims. Google has no need to see more evidence to lay out its hand on this score. Google must unequivocally state whether each product practiced or did not practice the asserted claims. For each contention, Google must provide an explanation based on its own analysis of the product. Google must faithful comply or withdraw its patent marking defense. If Google fails to do so by NOON ON FEBRUARY 14, then the Court will entertain a motion to eliminate the patent marking defense.

With respect to Google’s suggestion that Oracle has not previously produced the code and other evidence, Oracle replies that is wholly untrue and that all such evidence has previously been produce in discovery (Dkt. No. 706 at 6–21). This question would only affect the products and methods asserted by Oracle as falling within the claims and would not affect the products and methods asserted by Google as falling within the claims. As to the latter, Google should already have the evidence to back up its own contentions. As to the former, if it is really true that Oracle has neglected to produce the evidence cited by Oracle in its step one submission, then Google may in its February 14 submission, specify the missing evidence with particularity. Oracle shall then have until NOON ON FEBRUARY 17 to admit or deny the assertion of non-production, stating with particularity, if Oracle contends it was produced earlier, when, how, and to whom, the evidence was produced, taking care to admit any part of the allegedly-missing evidence was not produced. This issue, even if it is a genuine one, cannot justify the wholesale refusal to respond at all as required by the stipulation.


Until Google faithfully complies with its own stipulated procedure, Oracle will not be held to its step one admissions, that is, Google may not simply assert that Oracle has admitted a failure to mark and therefore there is no need for Google to admit or deny in order to defend on grounds of failure to mark. First, such a tactic would violate the stipulation. Second, such a tactic would be gamesmanship to “have it both ways” so as to have the benefit of the procedure without having to admit items that may hurt Google on other issues, such as the question of an injunction should Google lose at trial.

As required by their own stipulation, the parties shall have a meet-and-confer regarding their disclosures (this time with an acceptable disclosure from Google) with the aim of preparing a stipulation of which products practice the asserted claims. By NOON ON FEBRUARY 21, the parties shall jointly submit to the Court their stipulations, a statement on the evidentiary effect of their stipulations at trial, and a list of those products for which there is a genuine dispute between the parties, along with brief explanations of the basis for each party’s contention for each product.


Dated: January 31, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup



Oracle v. Google - Google On The Hot Seat On Marking Issue | 44 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: ais523 on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 07:18 AM EST
In case Mark has made a mistake. It helps if you put a summary of your
correction in the title of your comment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

off topic thread
Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 07:56 AM EST
off topic discussions here

[ Reply to This | # ]

newspicks thread
Authored by: designerfx on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 08:01 AM EST
newspicks discussion here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Pay Attention Google
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 10:00 AM EST

It appears Google is not totally familiar with BSF strategies. So... for the benefit of Google's strategic Legal Team, I'll try and help by listing all the strategies BSF employeed in the cases we've observed. In no particular order (except as they occur in thought):

    1) Make an accusation, force the defendant to prove the accusation
    2) Hold the defendant to levels of proof that the plaintiff is not required to provide
    3) Introduce new theories and evidence after discovery via the expert reports
    4) Do everything possible to get the Judge to rule out the defendants use of any defenses or supporting evidence
    5) Use witnesses that played absolutely no role in the issue they are witnessing for
    6) Use "experts" who will employ such tactics as pulling diverse words from different locations and putting them together to show a line of copyright sentence in the accused product
    7) When there are no cases that support the plaintiffs position, identify a case and totally misinterpret it to try and show it does support the plaintiffs position
    8) Deliberately misinterpret words - not just in the widest sense possible, but beyond that point: ex. all doesn't mean all
    9) Deliberately ignore clauses in contractual authorings
    10) Mis state what the Judge has actually stated
    11) Use a Judges statement in a specific situation to apply to other situations - for example if a Judge comments on the "good faith" effort in one instance, BSF will flog that in a lot of other instances as though the Judge made the statement in those instances as well
I'm sure others will chime in with what they remember.

Use this as a lesson in getting to know BSF: just because you think "and why" applies to both in the agreement, if it is not explicitly spelled out for Oracle's responsibilities, do not expect them to comply.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Google On The Hot Seat On Marking Issue
Authored by: Oliver on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 10:11 AM EST
I wonder whether the judge is really that annoyed with
Google or whether there is another reason.

If Google can provide a better argument, to the level where
the judge can rule as a matter of law, the the trial is
simpler. So why not castigate them, but then give them
another try? After all delaying the trial is favourable to
the judge as it gives the USPTO more time as well.

It may also have the secondary effects that Google can't
appeal as easily for Oracle's third try at damages, and also
Oracle can't say that the judge was biased against their
motion practice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think I see the judge's reasoning...and he's right
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:07 AM EST
Google’s response will specify which Oracle products it contends do (or do not) practice the asserted claims, and why.

The "and why" above, has to be met or answered by Google because it is Google, not Oracle, that is raised the "not marked" patent defense against Oracle, though Oracle agreed that it wasn't aware of any marked products.

Oracle has provided code segments that it claims practice the patents. It's now Google's job to examine the code and come to a different conclusion. This should not be that hard for Google's team.

In my limited knowledge of the law, you have to prove something once you claim it as fact.

[ Reply to This | # ]

impossible demands by the judge
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:22 AM EST
There are two answers possible for each product

A) The product X practices patent Y; which the affirmative is not provable without the exact source code for product X. I don't believe that discovery turned over the lot of source code for Google to inspect, so any affirmative answer from Google is speculation based on the open source code available publicly or though its runtime properties. Neither of these methods are definitive in absolute terms. Reverse engineering is possible but its like looking for a needle in a haystack, and the "proof" would need to be entered into evidence, which would be a publication of Copyrighted code and thus ethically questionable.

b) There is no product which practices patent Y, in which case Google is being asked to prove a negative where they do not even have the source code to point at. But saying its not there because we don't believe its not there is not a "and why" type answer. Fortunately, Oracle themselves admitted that there are no such products and Google can probably just agree to say the same and still please the court because the 'expert witness' is testifying the same. At that point the damages should just be the licensing fees going forward if patent Y is still a valid patent.

Neither opinion choice above is "provable" by Google under the current situation (IMHO && IANAL), so the "and why" requirement is completely over the top. Its not logically possible. Google can put experts on the stand to give their historical account, but if that person doesn't currently work for Oracle then their "memory" of the situation is only that. A memory of the past. While the past is usually a pretty good indication of the future, it is never absolute and completely deterministic. How do we know Oracle is not creating a new version containing patent Y this very minute? Could you prove it was not in a version of the same software 10 years ago without doing a delta disassembly listing of that product?

The good news is that Oracles bazillion dollars in damages in lost sales is likely reduced to just simple patent fees going forward. The fracturing of the Java developer space may still be a point of contention, so I expect that argument to heat up in the near future.

DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a "technology" its only 'logically' infeasible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Have Oracle set the required standard?
Authored by: Ian Al on Wednesday, February 01 2012 @ 11:54 AM EST
Google’s response will specify which Oracle products it contends do (or do not) practice the asserted claims, and why.

'[11-a] a memory containing intermediate form object code constituted by a set of instructions, certain of said instructions containing one or more symbolic references;'

Since all computers with installed compilers have such object code in memory, all of Oracle's compiler products not limited to those for the Java language practice this claim.

'[11-b] and a processor configured to execute said instructions containing one or more symbolic references by determining a numerical reference corresponding to said symbolic reference, storing said numerical references, and obtaining data in accordance to said numerical references.'

'No Oracle products practice this claim, including the JRE, because the Java virtual machine design does not include a configurable processor.'


We do not analyse any of the product lines against '205 because of the '...deposition testimony from one of the inventors that the invention disclosed in the '205 patent was not effective and therefore never implemented in any released version of a Java product.''


'1. A method of pre-processing class files comprising:'

'determining plurality of duplicated elements in a plurality of class files;'

Non of the Oracle products determine a plurality of duplicated elements in a plurality of class files. The Java post-compilation program, file name [redacted], only accepts one class file at a time.

'forming a shared table comprising said plurality of duplicated elements;'

Since only one class files is preprocessed at a time in the Oracle Java products, there is no sharing of the resulting tables and so the Oracle products do not practice this claim.

There, I've made a start. It fully meets the judge's 'and why' requirement, and how!

What we would consider a technical explanation of the whys and hows goes much further than the judge can use. The form my response takes is more to the point. If Oracle object that the response is not technical enough... well, my response is 'and, why?'.

Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ 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 )