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]