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 - New Order Regarding Material To Be Produced At Wednesday's Hearing
Tuesday, March 06 2012 @ 07:35 AM EST

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In a separate filing, Oracle has confirmed that it has withdrawn Claim 14 of the '476 patent.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


  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 )