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 - More on Patent Marking
Tuesday, December 06 2011 @ 08:30 AM EST

As the saying goes, sometimes it is best to leave well enough alone.

Oracle should probably have heeded that advice before filing its statement (638 [PDF; Text]) regarding the court's December 1 order to the parties regarding evidence of patent marking (636 [PDF; Text])

Oracle thought it would cleverly shift a burden to Google by asking the court to direct Google to:

"identify products in Oracle’s submission that Google contends do not practice the claims, in addition to identifying further products that practice the claims."


Even the court must have perceived that Oracle was trying to pull a fast one because Judge Alsup ordered Google to provide a response to the December 1 show-cause order because of Oracle's response and gave Google a limited amount of additional time in which to file that response. (639 [PDF; Text])

Google then obliged.

In its response (640 [PDF; Text]) Google reiterates that the burden of proof, either demonstrating marking or proving that it did not practice the invention, falls on the patentee -- in this case Oracle. Google agrees it would then respond to Oracle's "proof" and at the level of detail Oracle requested in its 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."
However, as Google points out, Google's willingness to respond does not shift the burden of proof, and for Google to be able to respond Oracle needs to meet its obligation of proof in sufficient detail that Google can properly respond. Consequently, Google now asks the court to supplement the original December 1 order not only with Oracle's proposed modification but with the added stipulation that:
"In order to properly allocate the burden of proof, require the same level of detail from both parties’ submissions, and ensure that this procedure provides the most assistance to the parties and the Court, Google requests that the Court direct Oracle, in its December 16, 2011 submission, to state with particularity its contentions that any of the products it identifies practice the asserted patents, and the evidentiary basis for any such contentions."
In other words, Oracle would have to provide sufficiently detailed evidence of the practice of the patent in the allegedly marked product to support Oracle's contention that it marked. Google should not have to respond to a bare claim of marking by then having to prove a missing claim element when Oracle has never, in fact, proven that each claim element has been met. This is clearly a better outcome for the court because it forces both parties to lay all of their cards on the table, but in proper sequence with Oracle going first.

Sometimes you are better off leaving well enough alone.

The Docket:

639 – Filed and Effective: 12/05/2011
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
Document Text: SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING PATENT MARKING re 638 Response to Order to Show Cause filed by Oracle America, Inc., 636 Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 5, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011) (Entered: 12/05/2011)

640 – Filed and Effective: 12/05/2011
Statement
Document Text: Statement re 639 Order regarding Patent Marking by Google Inc.. (Francis, Mark) (Filed on 12/5/2011) (Entered: 12/05/2011)


The Documents"

639:

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
Defendant.

No. C 10-03561 WHA

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER
REGARDING PATENT
MARKING

__________________________________

A prior order requested the parties’ response to the Court’s proposed plan regarding patent marking (Dkt. No. 636). Oracle filed its response and sought to add a new feature to the plan: Google should identify products in Oracle’s submission that Google contends do not practice the claims, in addition to identifying further products that practice the claims (Dkt. No. 638). The deadline in the prior order has passed and Google has not yet filed a response. Counsel for Google shall please comment on the Court’s proposed plan and also address the additional feature that Oracle has suggested by NOON TODAY.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2011.

/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


640:

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

GOOGLE'S STATEMENT RE THE
COURT’S DECEMBER 5, 2011
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING
PATENT MARKING

Judge: Hon. William Alsup

Google hereby makes this response to the Court‘s Order Regarding Patent Marking (Dkt. No. 636). Google did not previously file any statement because Google agreed that there was no cause why an order should not be entered.

Google believes that the procedure set forth in the Court’s order is appropriate because it comports with the legal standard for proof of marking. Under Federal Circuit law, the patentee bears the burden of showing compliance with the marking statute. See Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437, 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The patentee also bears the burden of proving that it did not practice a patent if it takes that position. See DR Systems, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 08-cv-066920, 09 WL 2632685 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2009) (“patentees must also have the burden of proving the nonexistence of patented articles.” (citing Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 2d 904, 908 (E.D. Tex. 2005))); see also WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc. et al, 732 F. Supp. 2d 634, 640 (E.D. Va. 2010) (the patentee “bears the burden of showing that it, and its licensees, were not required to mark under § 287”).

Once Oracle has addressed the issue in its December 16, 2011 submission, Google has no objection to also setting forth its position on marking. Google accepts the Court’s directive that it identify with particularity any further Oracle products that Google contends practice the patents and why. Google also accepts Oracle’s suggestion that Google state its contentions regarding any Oracle products that Google contends do not practice the patents. But importantly, even if Google discloses its position regarding the products identified in Oracle’s disclosure, the burden of proof at trial still will remain with Oracle as to whether its products did or did not practice the asserted patents.

Finally, Google has one further suggestion in light of Oracle’s December 2, 2011 letter to the Court. In order to properly allocate the burden of proof, require the same level of detail from both parties’ submissions, and ensure that this procedure provides the most assistance to the parties and the Court, Google requests that the Court direct Oracle, in its December 16, 2011 submission, to state with particularity its contentions that any of the products it identifies practice the asserted patents, and the evidentiary basis for any such contentions. This level of detail is essential for this process to work effectively. The disclosure by Google that Oracle requests, and

1

that Google is willing to provide, will be largely contingent on the nature of Oracle’s December 16, 2011 disclosure. To put Google in a position to respond meaningfully, Oracle should state positions that are specific, straightforward and based on evidence it has properly identified in its previous disclosures under Patent L.R. 3–1(g). Then, after reviewing Oracle’s submission, Google will submit its response on December 30, 2011.

Dated: December 5, 2011

KEKER & VAN NEST LLP

By: s/ Robert A. Van Nest
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
Attorneys for Defendant
GOOGLE INC.

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 )