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 - Oracle to Produce Third Attempt at Damages Report
Wednesday, January 25 2012 @ 01:30 AM EST

"Oracle America, Inc. will submit a damages report
in accordance with the terms set forth in the Court’s Order."

With that short statement [PDF] Oracle advised the court today that it will undertake a third attempt to produce a satisfactory damages report and that it will do so in compliance with the orders of the court. I have no doubt they will produce the report. Whether they will be able to restrain themselves in the manner directed by the court remains to be seen. If past history is any indication, don't hold your breath.

Reviewing the court's directive, this third damages report from Dr. Cockburn is to comply with the following conditions:

1. His [Dr. Cockburn's] full revised report, together with all supporting material, must be served no later than NOON ON FEBRUARY 3, 2012. He may revise only those items stricken by the recent order and the studies referred to in paragraph 4 below. [The sections of the Cockburn second damages report that were stricken are: apportionment and calculations based on apportionment (including patent damages and copyright lost license fee); references to the $400 million in patent damages through the end of 2012; references to the value of each patent; references to copyright lost licensee fee; and references regarding past licenses involving Nokia, Qualcomm, and Apple.]

2. Within seven calendar days after service of the revised report [February 10, 2012], Dr. Cockburn may be deposed by Google’s counsel for seven hours.

3. Dr. Cockburn may strengthen and revise the "econometric" and "conjoint" studies in his revised report as well as the items already stricken, to be done on the same schedule above, namely no later than February 3 at noon.

4. All fees and expenses reasonably incurred by Dr. Kearl (the court retained damages expert) in responding to the revisions by Dr. Cockburn shall ultimately be borne by Oracle, as follows: Dr. Kearl shall track his time in such a way as to make this segregation possible. Dr. Kearl shall continue to divide his billings as before and Google shall continue to pay its share to him, but Google may demand and recover prompt reimbursement from Oracle for the portion identified by Dr. Kearl as attributable to Dr. Cockburn’s third report.

5. All attorney’s fees, expert fees, and other expenses reasonably incurred by Google as a result of allowing a third damages study by Oracle, including all expense and time discussed above, shall be reimbursed by Oracle. Google shall track such items separately and invoice them to Oracle within 14 calendar days of the close of a calendar month and Oracle shall pay them within another 14 calendar days. These reimbursement amounts shall not be recoverable costs that Oracle may recover back in the event it prevails in this action.

6. The extent of which Dr. Cockburn may be impeached at trial by his track record of rejected methodologies will be decided between Phase Two and Phase Three. At this late hour, Oracle may not substitute a different damages expert or add a different damages expert. Except as above authorized, Dr. Cockburn may not make further revisions.

So in ten days we will see if Oracle's expert and legal counsel can do what they have been unable (or unwilling) to do for the past eight months.


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

Docket

703 - Filed and Effective: 01/24/2012
RESPONSE
Document Text: RESPONSE to re 702 Order, ORACLE AMERICA, INC.S RESPONSE TO COURT ORDER OF JANUARY 20, 2012 702 by Oracle America, Inc.. (Holtzman, Steven) (Filed on 1/24/2012) (Entered: 01/24/2012)


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

Document

703

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

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

Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S RESPONSE
TO COURT ORDER OF JANUARY 20,
2012 [DKT. NO. 702]

Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
Judge: The Honorable William Alsup

Oracle America, Inc. will submit a damages report in accordance with the terms set forth in the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 702).

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 24, 2012

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

By: /s/ Steven C. Holtzman
Steven C. Holtzman

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.

1


  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 )