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 - Stipulation on Copyright Damages Approved ~mw
Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 02:06 PM EDT

The parties have just submitted a proposed stipulation on copyright damages, and Judge Alsup has already accepted it. The ordered stipulation:

Subject to the approval of the Court, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

1. The assessment and award of monetary relief, if any, for infringement arising as a result of the rangeCheck code and the decompiled files that were the subject of questions 3.A and 3.B of the phase one jury verdict (the “Copied Materials”) shall be deferred in accordance with this stipulation.

2. In the event that Oracle’s claim based on the SSO of the 37 accused API packages or any portion thereof (the “SSO Claim”) is ultimately submitted to a jury (the “Future Jury”) for an assessment and award of monetary relief, then:

A. Proceedings with respect to the SSO Claim will be bifurcated, i.e., liability will be tried separately from willfulness and damages;

B. Oracle shall be free to seek from the Future Jury monetary relief in the form of profits for the infringement arising as a result of the Copied Materials, but only to the extent such profits are not taken into account in computing any actual damages or profits sought for infringement of the SSO; provided, however, that nothing herein shall require Oracle to allocate its actual damages and/or profits claimed between the SSO and the Copied Materials; and

C. In the event Oracle seeks profits arising as a result of the Copied Materials in such a future damages phase, neither party may use any expert opinions or reports or other evidence that they could not have used in the event such claim for profits was tried before the current jury.

3. In the event that no portion of Oracle’s SSO Claim is submitted to a future jury for an assessment and award of monetary relief, then:

A. The parties waive their right to a jury trial on the issue of monetary relief if any, for infringement arising as a result of the Copied Materials;

B. Oracle waives any claim for actual damages or profits for such infringement; and

C. The Court will set an amount of statutory damages for such infringement in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

4. Nothing contained in this stipulation shall impair or adversely affect in any way the rights of the parties to raise in any appeal any and all issues relating to the Copied Materials; for the avoidance of doubt and without limiting in any way the generality of the foregoing, such rights of appeal shall include, among other issues: (a) issues relating to the definitions of “work as a whole” that formed part of the instructions to the current jury and/or whether use of the rangeCheck code or the decompiled files was de minimis as a matter of law and (b) issues relating to the amounts of any damages (including statutory damages) awarded in accordance with the procedures set forth above.

5. In the event the current jury returns a verdict finding infringement as to any claim of the 104 Patent or the 520 Patent, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the stipulations previously entered into between the parties.

Update: We now have a transcript [PDF] of the events of the day.

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

Docket

05/16/2012 - 1158 - STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Copyright Damages filed by Google Inc.. (Baber, Bruce) (Filed on 5/16/2012) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

05/16/2012 - 1159 - STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING COPYRIGHT DAMAGES re 1158 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Copyright Damages filed by Google Inc. Signed by Judge William Alsup on 5/16/12. (dt, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2012) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

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


  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 )