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 v. Google - Reexaminations Invite a Stay
Friday, March 02 2012 @ 09:00 AM EST

In one more order from the court yesterday Judge Alsup is clearly considering whether the trial needs to be delayed to allow the USPTO to complete the reexaminations of the Oracle patents. (757 [PDF; Text]) Judge Alsup has directed Oracle to "state a clear answer" to this question:

[G]iven that the examiners have issued final rejections on patents ’720, ’702, ’476, and ’205, and Oracle has only withdrawn the ’476 patent, but still wishes to go to trial on patents ’720, ’702, ’205, ’520, and ’104, and Oracle still wishes to have an instruction that those patents must be presumed valid and can only be found invalid by clear and convincing evidence, would it be better to postpone trial until after final decisions by the PTO on administrative appeal?


Judge Alsup also asks Oracle to answer this question:

[T]o avoid this problem, will Oracle irrevocably withdraw with prejudice patents ’720, ’702, and ’205?
The judge has also invited Google to respond, although it is the Oracle answers that will be the most critical.

Clearly Judge Alsup is looking to streamline the case, and he has decided to do so by forcing Oracle's hand:

  • Persist in asserting all of these patents, and you are looking at delaying the trial until at least late in the year.
  • Drop three of the remaining five asserted patents (with prejudice, meaning they cannot be reasserted again later), and we will try to stay on schedule.

With respect to the two remaining patents, '104 and '520, keep in mind that the '104 patent has also received a non-final rejection, and any decision to delay could result in a final rejection and the loss of these claims, as well. Further, because of admissions made by Oracle during the reexamination of the '520 patent, Google will argue that those admissions limit the scope of the '520 claims, increasing the likelihood that Google does not infringe the claims.

Given the problems Oracle already faces with their expert's damages report, they may want to seriously rethink how this whole lawsuit is going to play out. Fortunately for Oracle they will likely have the court's decision on the damages report before they have to respond to this order.


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

Docket

03/01/2012 - Set/Reset Deadlines as to 718 MOTION to Strike Portions of Third Expert Report by Iain Cockburn and Expert Report by Steven Shugan; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof. Motion Hearing set for 3/7/2012 07:30 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2012) (Entered: 03/01/2012)

03/01/2012 - 757 - SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING STATEMENT ON REEXAMINATIONS re 726 Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 1, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2012) (Entered: 03/01/2012)


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

Document

757

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

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING STATEMENT ON
REEXAMINATIONS

______________________________________

Oracle should state a clear answer to the following question: given that the examiners have issued final rejections on patents ’720, ’702, ’476, and ’205, and Oracle has only withdrawn the ’476 patent, but still wishes to go to trial on patents ’720, ’702, ’205, ’520, and ’104, and Oracle still wishes to have an instruction that those patents must be presumed valid and can only be found invalid by clear and convincing evidence, would it be better to postpone trial until after final decisions by the PTO on administrative appeal? Also please answer: to avoid this problem, will Oracle irrevocably withdraw with prejudice patents ’720, ’702, and ’205? The views of Google on these questions will also be appreciated. Please provide responses by NOON ON MARCH 9, 2012

, as part of the submission regarding the reexaminations.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2012.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


  


Oracle v. Google - Reexaminations Invite a Stay | 151 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Oracle wants this to go quickly?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 09:12 AM EST
I thought Oracle wanted to drag this out as long as possible?

So why expect them to agree to drop anything at this point?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: jesse on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 09:15 AM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick discussions
Authored by: jesse on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 09:20 AM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic discussions
Authored by: jesse on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 09:20 AM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES thread
Authored by: jesse on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 09:21 AM EST
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Withdraw or Face Delay
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 10:56 AM EST
... that is what is somehow sounds like to me. Giving Oracle the choice to
reduce to the patents non-finally rejected (one facing rejection, the other
possibly not infringed), or wait until the re-examinations are complete and have
it cut down to the last (possibly non-infringed) patent.

Either way, it seems the same result is expected. Does not sound like much of a
choice to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Reexaminations Invite a Stay
Authored by: darrellb on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 12:15 PM EST
Imo, the fact that examiners have issued final rejections is clear and
convincing evidence of invalidity.

It appears that final rejections are not clear and convincing evidence of
invalidity in a legal sense.

It seems to me that the burden of proof of validity should shift when the patent
office issues a finding of invalidity.

Instead of clear and convincing evidence of invalidity, the patent owner should
be tasked with clear and convincing evidence of validity when there is any
finding of invalidity by the patent office, whether it is final or not.

---
darrellB

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Reexaminations Invite a Stay
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 12:18 PM EST
What would happen, if Oracle won the trial and the patents
are declared invalid afterwords?

Would Google still need to pay?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Reexaminations Invite a Stay
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 02 2012 @ 03:14 PM EST
I am surprised that given the state of the patents the judge hasn't invited
Oracle to abandon their case

[ Reply to This | # ]

A funny "ha ha" moment occurred
Authored by: jesse on Saturday, March 03 2012 @ 07:50 AM EST
A funny "ha ha" moment occurred when I realized that "software
patents" are actually "quantum patents".

The exist in a range from 0 (don't exist) to 1 (do exist)...

They have no effect until actually measured (by a court)...

They can disappear when observed (patent claims evaporate)

And they can have macro effects at certain times causing money to vanish (patent
wars)

As well as cause quantum effects on money...Its existence/nonexistence the same
time - depending on who is talking about it and to whom they are talking to. Or
even what court they are in...

:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Oracle v. Google - Reexaminations Invite a Stay
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 04 2012 @ 04:56 PM EST
Ok, I may be way off base here since this is patent law (Ok, it doesn't matter,
I have no clue about law:)). But Novell was in, what I would call, a similar
position. I hope I make some sense, but her it goes. Novell was in a position
that they were making damaging statements about SCO and their Linux claims. SCO
claimed slander and that it hurt their business. It was ruled that since Novell
had good knowledge that this was not true, there cannot be slander (or something
to that effect, Novell won the case so it's moot). In other words, they had
good, substantial evidence and reason they were right and it was not the
intention to damage SCO.

Based in the single fact these patents are rejected, would Google still be on
the hook for patent infringement when the USPO rejected them (regardless if they
are overturned)? Shouldn't the fact that the USPO rejected those patents be
enough to get Google off the hook. After all since the patent office rejected
these patents; how could Google would know better.

[ 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 )