Google has now filed an unopposed motion [PDF] asking the Federal Circuit for more time to respond to Oracle's appeals brief as well as to file a cross-appellant brief:
Under Federal Circuit Rule 26(b), appellee and cross-appellant Google Inc. (“Google”) moves for an extension—from the current due date of March 25, 2013 to the revised due date of May 23, 2013—to file its combined Appellee’s Brief and Cross-Appellant’s Brief (“Google’s First Brief”). Appellant Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) does not oppose this motion and previously received an equivalent extension for its opening brief. That means Google is going to answer Oracle's reasons for appealing but it intends to appeal issues as well. The court is likely to grant the unopposed request, since Oracle got an equivalent extension by saying it would not oppose if Google chose to file a motion asking for the same time, but it doesn't have to grant the motion. Until it does, the due date is still March 25.
Google states that not only did Oracle get a similar extension, but there have been a lot of words filed in amicus briefs in support of Oracle, or asking that the court overrule the district court in some particular way the amicus would like:
7. These six amicus briefs contain a total of 35,186 words—more than 2.5 times the length of Oracle’s opening brief (which contains 13,998 words). Google’s First Brief will be its last opportunity to respond to these additional briefs (except to the extent that they bear on Google’s cross-appeal). And from reading Microsoft's amicus brief [PDF], I'd say there are some corrections needed. I'm working on a text version for you, and I'll highlight some of the things I see that I think need to be answered.
02/21/2013 - 67 - MOTION of Cross-Appellant Google Inc. to extend the time to 05/23/2013 at 11:59 pm to file the appellee/respondent/cross-appellant's principal brief. Response/Opposition is due 03/07/2013 [Consent: unopposed]. Service: 02/21/2013 by email. 
02/22/2013 - 71 - Notice of Rejection to Amicus Curiae Emcore Corporation, the following document(s) cannot be filed:  attorney entry of appearance ,  attorney entry of appearance ,  attorney entry of appearance. Reason(s) The documents are not text-searchable and do not contain certificates of service. Service: 02/22/2013 by clerk.
As you can see, both BSA and Emcore will have to refile amicus briefs, as they didn't follow the court's rules. The court tells BSA that their filing was incomplete:
02/22/2013 - 72 NOTICE OF REJECTION: The brief of Amicus Curiae BSA - The Software Alliance, Brief for BSA The Software Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee Oracle America, Inc. , is not in compliance with the rules of this court and is therefore rejected for filing. amicus brief due 03/08/2013. 
02/22/2013 - 73 - Corrected Entry of appearance for Krishnendu Gupta as of counsel for EMC Corporation. Service: 02/22/2013 by email. 
02/22/2013 - 74 - Corrected Entry of appearance for Paul T. Dacier as of counsel for EMC Corporation. Service: 02/22/2013 by email. 
The Brief for BSA The Software Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee Oracle America, Inc. has been rejected for following reasons:
That should be interesting. Oracle joined the Business Software Alliance not long after it lost to Google at trial.
The amicus brief does not contain a statement regarding authorship and/or funding. Fed. R. App. P. 29(c)(5)
Google's motion as text:
No. 13-1021, -1022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO FILE
COMBINED APPELLEE’S BRIEF AND CROSS-APPELLANT’S BRIEF;
SUPPORTING DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. HIRSCH
Under Federal Circuit Rule 26(b), appellee and cross-appellant Google Inc. (“Google”) moves for an extension—from the current due date of March 25, 2013 to the revised due date of May 23, 2013—to file its combined Appellee’s Brief and Cross-Appellant’s Brief (“Google’s First Brief”). Appellant Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) does not oppose this motion and previously received an equivalent extension for its opening brief.
1. As required by Circuit Rule 26(b)(2), Google has informed all other parties that it will seek this extension.
2. As required by Circuit Rule 26(b)(3), Google states that Oracle agreed
to the requested extension by telephone and in correspondence on November 20,
2012, and in its November 29, 2012 motion for an extension (document 33), which this Court granted (document 34). Oracle’s motion specifically proposed a due date of May 23, 2013 for Google’s First Brief. See document 33 at pp. 3-4.
3. As required by Circuit Rule 26(b)(4), Google states that (A) the date to be extended is March 25, 2013; (B) the revised date sought is May 23, 2013; (C) the number of days of extension sought is 59; and (4) the total number of days of extension previously granted to the movant is zero.
4. As required by Circuit Rule 26(b)(5), this motion is accompanied by a declaration of counsel showing good cause for an extension that exceeds 14 days. See Declaration of Steven A. Hirsch (attached).
Dated: February 21, 2013
s/Steven A. Hirsch
ROBERT A. VAN NEST
CHRISTA M. ANDERSON
STEVEN A. HIRSCH
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for Cross-Appellant
DECLARATION OF STEVEN A. HIRSCH
1. I am an attorney at law duly
admitted to practice law in the States of California, New York, and
Connecticut and in the District of Columbia, and am a partner with the
law firm of Keker & Van Nest, LLP, counsel to defendant, appellee, and
cross-appellant Google Inc. (“Google”) in this matter.
2. I have
knowledge of the facts set forth below and, if called as a witness,
could and would testify to them.
3. I make this declaration as
required by Circuit Rule 26(b)(5) to demonstrate good cause for an
extension that exceeds 14 days.
4. On November 20, 2012, Mr. Mark
Davies (counsel for Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”)) contacted me via
telephone and corresponded regarding Oracle’s motion for a 55-day
extension of time to file Oracle’s opening brief. Google agreed not to
oppose Oracle’s motion so long as Google received an equivalent
extension. Oracle agreed that it would not oppose Google’s motion for an
equivalent extension of time. Oracle’s extension motion stated that,
“[i]f an equivalent extension was granted for Google, its initial brief
would be due May 23, 2013.” Document 33 at pp. 3-4.
5. Besides the
fact that Oracle agreed to this extension and received an equivalent
extension itself, an additional good cause for the requested extension
is the massive record of this case, described as follows in paragraph 4
extension motion (document 33): “There are over
1200 entries on the district court docket; the copyright portion of the
trial was 12 days long and produced almost 2,800 transcript pages; the
jury deliberated for five days; the parties filed 48 motions,
applications, and briefs on just the issues of copyrightability and
infringement; the district court issued nearly 300 orders; and the
record contains approximately 138 gigabytes of pleadings, other filings,
orders, trial exhibits, demonstrative exhibits, expert reports,
transcripts, and the like.”
6. As an additional good cause for the
requested extension, Google notes that six amicus briefs have been filed
in support of Oracle:
- Brief for Amicus Curiae Ralph Oman Supporting
the Position of Plaintiff-Appellant and Urging Reversal (document 46)
- Brief of Amici Curiae Picture Archive Council of
America, Inc. and Graphic Artists Guild in Support of
Plaintiff-Appellant Seeking Reversal (document 54) (6,390 words);
- Brief for Amici Curiae Microsoft Corporation, EMC Corporation, and
NetApp, Inc. in Support of Appellant (document 55) (4,965 words)
- Brief of Scott McNealy and Brian Sutphin as Amici Curiae in Support
of Reversal (document 58) (5,753 words);
- Brief for BSA |
The Software Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff-Appellee
Oracle America, Inc. (document 59) (6,622 words); and
- The Brief of
Amici Curiae Eugene H. Spafford, Ph.D., Zhi Ding, Ph.D., and Lee A.
Hollaar, Ph.D. in Support of Appellant (document 62) (4,497 words).
7. These six amicus briefs contain a total of 35,186 words—more than
2.5 times the length of Oracle’s opening brief (which contains 13,998
words). Google’s First Brief will be its last opportunity to respond to
these additional briefs (except to the extent that they bear on Google’s
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on February 21, 2013.
s/Steven A. Hirsch
STEVEN A. HIRSCH
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on
February 21, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk
of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all
participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service
will be accomplished by the appellate CM/ECF system.
s/Steven A. Hirsch
FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
Steven A. Hirsch
[See PDF, final two pages]