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.


To read comments to this article, go here
Oracle v. Google - That Didn't Take Long
Friday, December 02 2011 @ 09:00 AM EST

No sooner did the parties file their respective positions on the subject of patent marking with the court (see Proof of Patent Marking) than Judge Alsup has issued an order on how to move forward. (636 [PDF; Text]) Except for the deadlines (Judge Alsup allowing more time for responses than Google had proposed), the court has, as we anticipated, largely adopted the approach suggested by Google, although at this first step Judge Alsup is only interested in getting a complete list of products the parties contend embody the patents. Where the court then elects to go remains to be seen.

Google's proposal:

Google proposes that by December 9, 2011, for each of the 26 asserted patent claims, Oracle identify each Oracle product or Oracle-licensed product that allegedly practices the claim, and the time period during which the product allegedly was marked. By December 16, Google will respond and identify which contentions in Oracle’s submissions it would be able to stipulate to, and which contentions it will challenge at trial. ... To the extent any disputes remain in view of the above disclosures (or should the Court not require such disclosures) both Google and Oracle will need to present evidence concerning whether or not Oracle (or Oracle-licensed) products practiced the patents-in-suit before July 20, 2010—the date upon which Oracle first notified Google of alleged infringement.


Judge Alsup's order:

Counsel for Oracle shall identify, for each of the 26 asserted claims, each Oracle product, Oracle-licensed product, Sun product, or Sun-licensed product that practiced the claim during the alleged damages period from January 1, 2007 through July 20, 2010, the time of actual notice. This must be filed by DECEMBER 16, 2011. In making this submission, counsel shall keep in mind that they are officers of the court and full candor is required.

By DECEMBER 30, 2011, counsel for Google shall respond and identify any further products by Oracle or Sun that practiced any of the 26 asserted claims, specifying with particularity which ones and why. Counsel shall keep in mind that they are officers of the court and full candor is required. Mere allegations will not suffice. Google will only list products they can prove practiced the asserted claims.

The course adopted by the court is both prudent and efficient. Clearly, the issue of whether the apparatus claims being asserted by Oracle (the claims that begin with, for example: "an apparatus," "a computer program product," "a data processing system," or "a computer-readable storage medium") are embodied in products can be determined now, and knowing whether there is evidence to support those contentions before the trial begins will spur the matter along. Once Judge Alsup has seen the available evidence, he can then decide whether it is worth pursuing further at this time or whether the issue is best handled at trial.

It is also interesting that the judge has warned both parties "counsel shall keep in mind that they are officers of the court and full candor is required." In other words, each party had best be diligent in their search for evidence and as accurate as possible in their assessment of that evidence.


***********

Docket

636 – Filed and Effective: 12/01/2011
ORDER
Document Text: ORDER REGARDING PATENT MARKING re 635 Statement filed by Google Inc., 634 Statement filed by Oracle America, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 1, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011) (Entered: 12/01/2011)


***********

Documents

636

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 REGARDING
PATENT MARKING

________________________________________

Having read the parties’ letters dated November 30, 2011, counsel are requested to show cause by 5:00 PM TOMORROW why the following procedure should not be adopted in order to streamline and manage the trial.

Counsel for Oracle shall identify, for each of the 26 asserted claims, each Oracle product, Oracle-licensed product, Sun product, or Sun-licensed product that practiced the claim during the alleged damages period from January 1, 2007 through July 20, 2010, the time of actual notice. This must be filed by DECEMBER 16, 2011. In making this submission, counsel shall keep in mind that they are officers of the court and full candor is required.

By DECEMBER 30, 2011, counsel for Google shall respond and identify any further products by Oracle or Sun that practiced any of the 26 asserted claims, specifying with particularity which ones and why. Counsel shall keep in mind that they are officers of the court and full candor is required. Mere allegations will not suffice. Google will only list products they can prove practiced the asserted claims.

After reviewing these submissions, the Court will determine the appropriate next steps.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2011.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2


  View Printable Version


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 )