Back on November 8, Judge Alsup issued an order directing the parties to identify any terms in the patent claims that should not be given their ordinary meaning and, therefore, required interpretation by the court. (603 [PDF; Text]) The parties have now filed their response, and it evidences a minimum of disagreements (for a change). (637 [PDF; Text]).
The chart in the document shows the parties only in disagreement over the terms:
- "computer-readable medium;"
- "runtime;" and
- "obtain(ing) a representation of at least one class from a source definition provided as object oriented program code."
What's interesting is that, in each of these instances, Oracle either believes the term is easily given its ordinary meaning or, as in the case of "computer-readable medium," a very broad, non-specific definition. To the contrary, Google seeks more refined meanings, which shouldn't be surprising since Google wants to limit the scope of what may be included in the claims. I find it humorous, and typical of the inability of these parties to agree on the time of day, that the definition that Google wants to assign to "runtime" is, according to Oracle, the term's ordinary meaning.
In the only other filing (638 [PDF; Text"]) of the day Oracle has consented to Judge Alsup's proposed process for gathering information on patent marking. (636 [PDF; Text"])
The one qualification Oracle requests is that the court
"require Google’s response to not only “identify any further products by Oracle or Sun that practiced any of the 26 asserted claims, specifying with particularity which ones and why,”
but also explain with the same particularity any contention Google has that a product identified in Oracle’s submission does not practice the claims."
By requesting this additional qualification Oracle would seem to indicate that it intends to provide evidence that products have, in fact, been marked. We should know whether that is true fairly soon given that Oracle is required to file its evidence by December 16.
************
Docket
637 – Filed and Effective: 12/02/2011
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT
Document Text: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT Joint Identification Of Additional Claim Terms For Construction filed by Google Inc. (Paige, Eugene) (Filed on 12/2/2011) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
638 – Filed and Effective: 12/02/2011
RESPOSNE
Document Text: RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Oracle America, Inc. Oracle letter in response to Order Regarding Patent Marking (ECF No. 636). (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/2/2011) (Entered: 12/02/2011)
**************
Documents
637
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.
Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
Honorable Judge William Alsup
JOINT IDENTIFICATION OF
ADDITIONAL CLAIM TERMS FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s November 8, 2011 Order Regarding Construction of Claims to be
Tried (Dkt. No. 603), and having met-and-conferred as directed by the Court, Google and Oracle
identify the following claim terms for construction, along with their respective proposed
constructions. Per the Court’s Order, the parties identify only claim terms within the 26 claims
identified by Oracle for trial (Dkt. No. 471).
1
DATED: December 2, 2011
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Marc D. Peters
Marc D. Peters
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)
[email]
MARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)
[email]
DANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)
[email address telephone fax]
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
DAVID BOIES (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[email address telephone fax]
STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)
[email address telephone fax]
ORACLE CORPORATION
DORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)
[email]
DEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)
[email]
MATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)
[email address telephone fax]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
2
DATED: December 2, 2011
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
By: /s/ Christa M. Anderson
ROBERT A. VAN NEST (SBN 84065)
[email]
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON (SBN 184325)
[email]
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
[address telephone fax]
SCOTT T. WEINGAERTNER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
ROBERT F. PERRY
[email]
BRUCE W. BABER (Pro Hac Vice)
[email]
KING & SPALDING LLP
[address telephone fax]
DONALD F. ZIMMER, JR. (SBN 112279)
[email]
CHERYL A. SABNIS (SBN 224323)
[email]
KING & SPALDING LLP
[address telephone fax]
IAN C. BALLON (SBN 141819)
[email]
HEATHER MEEKER (SBN 172148)
[email]
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
[address telephone fax]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
GOOGLE INC.
3
For those who may depend on screen readers, the same screenshot in HTML:
| Claim |
Term |
Google’s Proposed
Construction |
Oracle’s Proposed
Construction |
‘476 Patent,
Claim 14 |
computer-
readable medium |
any medium that
participates in providing
instructions to a processor
for execution, including but
not limited to, optical or
magnetic disks, dynamic
memory, coaxial cables,
copper wire, fiber optics,
acoustic or light waves,
radio-waves and infra-red
data communications |
a storage device for use by
a computer |
‘720 Patent,
Claims 1, 10
and 19 |
Obtain[ing] a
representation of
at least one class
from a source
definition
provided as
object oriented
program code |
load at least one class
definition by compiling
object oriented source code |
No construction necessary.
The phrase has the ordinary
meaning that its constituent
words give it. |
‘205 Patent,
Claims 1 and
2 |
runtime |
during execution of the
virtual machine instructions |
No construction necessary.
The ordinary meaning is
“during execution of the
virtual machine.” |
638
[Morrison Foerster letterhead]
December 2, 2011
The Honorable William H. Alsup
United States District Court, Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA (N.D. Cal.)
Dear Judge Alsup:
We write in response to the Court’s request to show cause (ECF No. 636) regarding the
Court’s proposed procedure regarding patent marking. Oracle does not object to the Court’s
proposed procedure. For clarity and efficiency, Oracle requests that the Court require
Google’s response to not only “identify any further products by Oracle or Sun that practiced
any of the 26 asserted claims, specifying with particularity which ones and why,” but also
explain with the same particularity any contention Google has that a product identified in
Oracle’s submission does not practice the claims. This will assist the Court and the parties in
determining the extent of the disagreement between the parties, if any.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
|
