The Court and the parties are now moving into final trial preparations. A conference call was held yesterday ( [PDF; Text]). One of the items covered on the call was the trial schedule, which is now firmed up. The trial will now commence on April 16, and the Court has specified the other days that will initially be allocated to the trial (see listing below; also the judge's schedule is here).
What else the Court and the parties discussed on that call we do not know because an order issuing from that call has been sealed. (Dkt. 857)
The Court did issue an order (854 [PDF; Text]) with respect to the copyright issues seeking to clarify what does and does not stand accused of copyright infringement. The Court wishes to provide this information to the jury following the respective opening statements of the parties at the commencement of Phase I (copyright infringement liability) of the trial. The Court has asked the parties to confer and critique the following list:
What stands accused are:
- The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files), including
rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English comments
that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37 API
implementation.
- Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API
“specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such items.
- The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization,
it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the
media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.
- Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37 Java
APIs.
What is not accused:
- Android’s use of the Java programming language (other than any direct copying
of source code).
- The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and
definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of
specifications).
- The idea of APIs.
- The Dalvik virtual machine.
One thing I note on that list is the exception of the Java language source code from things not accused. If the Java language is available under the GNU General Public License, then that source code should not be excepted in this instance.
Here are the dates presently reserved for the trial: Week One
4/17/2012 (Tuesday)
4/18/2012
4/19/2012
4/20/2012
Week Two
4/23/2012
4/24/2012
4/25/2012
4/26/2012
4/27/2012
Week Three
4/30/2012
5/1/2012
5/2/2012
5/3/2012
5/4/2012
Week Four
5/7/2012
5/8/2012
5/9/2012
5/10/2012
5/11/2012
Week Five
5/14/2012
5/15/2012
5/16/2012
5/17/2012
5/18/2012
Week Six
5/21/2012
5/22/2012
5/23/2012
5/24/2012
5/25/2012
Week Seven
5/28/2012
5/29/2012
5/30/2012
5/31/2012
6/1/2012
We note that the Court has scheduled a session on Memorial Day, a federal holiday (5/28/2012). Also, the Court has only scheduled seven weeks for the trial instead of the originally anticipated eight weeks.
**************
Docket
04/04/2012 - 854 - REQUEST
FOR STATEMENT OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 4,
2012. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
04/04/2012 - 855 - Letter
from John L. Cooper to Judge Alsup regarding Dr. Kearl. (Cooper, John)
(Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
04/04/2012 - 856 - ORDER SETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 3:00 APRIL 4,
2012. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
04/04/2012 - TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 3:00 P.M. ON 4/3/2012. Signed by
Judge William Alsup on 4/4/2012. (whasec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
04/04/2012 - Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 4/17/2012 4/18/2012
4/19/2012 07 4/20/2012 4/23/2012 4/24/2012 4/25/2012 4/26/2012 4/27/2012
4/30/2012 5/1/2012 5/2/2012 5/3/2012 5/4/2012 5/7/2012 5/8/2012 5/9/2012
5/10/2012 5/11/2012 5/14/2012 5/15/2012 5/16/2012 5/17/2012 5/18/2012
5/21/2012 5/22/2012 5/23/2012 5/24/2012 5/25/2012 5/28/2012 5/29/2012
5/30/2012 6/1/2012 07:30 AM before Hon. William Alsup. (dt, COURT STAFF)
(Filed on 4/4/2012) . (Entered: 04/04/2012)
04/04/2012 - Set/Reset Hearings: Jury Trial set for 5/31/2012 07:30 AM
in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William Alsup.
(dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012). (Entered: 04/04/2012)
04/04/2012 - 857 - ORDER Regarding Telephone Call. Signed by Judge
William Alsup on 4/4/2012. FILED UNDER SEAL.(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on
4/4/2012) (Entered: 04/04/2012)
**************
Documents
854
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
REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
OF ISSUES RE COPYRIGHT
In connection with the opening statements (and eventually the special verdict form at the
end of Phase One), the Court will want the jury to be clearly told what specifically stands
accused of copyright infringement (and what is not accused). The Court is considering making
its own statement to the jury in this regard after the opening statements so as to frame for the
jury the Phase One issues in play. To do so, the Court asks counsel to meet and confer and to
revise the following summary. The summary of what the Court understands is as follows:
What stands accused are:
- The 12 Android files of source code (copied from 11 Java files), including
rangeCheck. Please identify which files only contained copied English comments
that were not compiled. Please identify which files were part of the 37 API
implementation.
- Plain English descriptions in the user manual, sometimes called the API
“specifications” (right column). Please identify the number of lines of such items.
- The 37 APIs but only as to their specific selection, structure, and organization,
it being conceded that the implementing code is different. Please identify the
media of fixation for the selection, structure, and organization.
- Android’s entire source code and object code as derivative works of the 37 Java
APIs.
What is not accused:
- Android’s use of the Java programming language (other than any direct copying
of source code).
- The titles and names of APIs, including all package and class names and
definitions, fields, methods and method signatures (names in the left column of
specifications).
- The idea of APIs.
- The Dalvik virtual machine.
Counsel should at least be able to agree on how we will describe the items in play in
Phase One. By THURSDAY, APRIL 12 AT NOON, both sides shall please file a statement along
the lines of the above with appropriate revisions.
The Court will not rule on the copyrightability issues until all of the Phase One evidence
is in the trial record and counsel are reminded again of the need to place in the record all
evidence on which they will rely for their respective positions, both as to copyrightability and
infringement and defenses. Before Phase One closing argument, the Court will decide whether
to ask for an advisory verdict on issues. (As already clear, damages evidence, including
copyright damages evidence, will be reserved to Phase Three).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 4, 2012.
/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
855
FARELLA BRAIN + MARTEL LLP [letterhead]
April 4, 2012
The Honorable William H. Alsup
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 3:10-CV-03561-WHA (N.D. Cal.)
Dear Judge Alsup:
I write on behalf of Rule 706 expert Dr. James R. Kearl to address the scheduling issue of
the amount of time to be allocated in trial to his direct examination. At the hearing on March 28,
2012, the Court indicated that as much as two hours could be allocated to the direct examination
of Dr. Kearl, which time would not be counted against trial time allocated to either party. (See
transcript pages 142 — 143.) I have consulted with Daniel Purcell, counsel for Google, and
Steven Holtzman, counsel for Oracle, who have indicated that they have no objection to two
hours being allocated to direct examination of Dr. Kearl provided his direct examination is not
charged against the trial time of either party. Accordingly, Dr. Kearl requests that he be
allocated two hours for his direct examination at trial.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John L. Cooper
John L. Cooper
856
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 SETTING
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE
The undersigned judge will have a telephone conference with counsel at 3:00 P.M.
TODAY. Please call 415-522-3684 beforehand to leave your telephone number to be contacted.
Only one representative per side is required.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 4, 2012.
/s/ William Alsup
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
|
