The court has issued another clarifying order with respect to the upcoming hearing on Dr. Cockburn's third attempt at a damages report. (768 [PDF; Text]) It is hard to tell from this clarifying order where Judge Alsup is headed. Is he merely seeking to understand the details of this third approach? Do his questions indicate some suspicion that Dr. Cockburn didn't properly follow instructions ("what is the separate value of each patent in suit")? Or is the good judge trying to find some basis, any basis, for allowing this third attempt to stand? Hard to tell at this point.
What is clear is that the judge wants the parties to come to the hearing fully armed and ready for bear. And he won't be relying solely on the references chosen by Dr. Cockburn. Judge Alsup wants to know why Cockburn chose some references and ignored others and whether those ignored were more precise (and likely less generous to Oracle) than those used. Should make for a lively day.
In a separate filing, Oracle has confirmed that it has withdrawn Claim 14 of the '476 patent. (769 [PDF; Text]) This was presumed to be the case, and Oracle has now confirmed the action. As a result, the court has found Google's request for a motion for summary judgment on the validity of the '476 patent moot. (767 [PDF; Text])
***************
Docket
03/02/2012 - 767 - ORDER DENYING PRECIS REQUEST AS MOOT re 716 Letter filed by Oracle America, Inc., 715 Letter filed by Google Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 2, 2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2012) (Entered: 03/02/2012)
03/05/2012 - 769 - Letter
from Michael A. Jacobs regarding Court order 767 and Oracle's withdrawal
of Claim 14 of the '476 patent. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/5/2012)
(Entered: 03/05/2012)
03/05/2012 - 768 - ORDER
REGARDING HEARING ON MARCH 7 re 756 Order. Signed by Judge Alsup on
March 5, 2012.. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2012) (Entered:
03/05/2012)
***************
767
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 AS MOOT
____________________________________
Google requests to file a motion for summary judgment of invalidity of the ’476 patent. In
response, Oracle has withdrawn Claim 14, the only asserted claim of the ’476 patent. The Court
interprets Oracle’s withdrawal as an affirmative statement that it has surrendered Claim 14 in the
same manner as previously surrendered claims, that is, Oracle may not renew this infringement
claim in a subsequent action except as to new products. If this is not the case, Oracle must
respond by NOON ON MARCH 5. For now, Google’s request is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2012.
/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
768
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
HEARING ON MARCH 7
______________________________________
For the hearing on Wednesday, the Court would like to learn the following. How did
Dr. Ian Cockburn choose which studies to rely on for the patent-value curves? Do studies not
chosen, such as those listed in Harhoff et al., have less skewed curves? Please bring copies of all
references and studies with patent-value curves, not just the three selected by Dr. Cockburn.
Based on the three studies cited, what is the confidence interval for the proposition that the top
0.5% of patents are worth 32.7% of the value (also, that the top 4% of patents are worth 10.2%)?
What would be the value of the ’104, ’205, and ’720 patents if they ranked as the bottom three of
the “top” 22 patents? For all statistical analysis, including the conjoint analysis, the Court is
interested in the confidence intervals of the results. Under the group and value approach, what is
the separate value of each patent in suit?
Both sides shall exchange whatever illustrative materials they plan to use by 5:00 P.M. ON
TUESDAY. Please come prepared to hand up precise evidence to back up assertions.
Dated: March 5, 2012.
/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
769
[Morrison Foerster letterhead]
March 5, 2012
Hon. William Alsup
United States District Court, Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Ave., Courtroom 8, 19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-03561-WHA
Dear Judge Alsup:
We write in response to the Court’s March 2 Order (ECF No. 767) to confirm that
Oracle’s withdrawal of Claim 14 of the ’476 patent was made on the terms established by the
Court (ECF No. 131), in the same manner as its earlier withdrawal of other patent claims
against Google.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
|
