Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
10Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Oracle Opposition to Google Daubert Motion

Oracle Opposition to Google Daubert Motion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 9,778 |Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
For further information please visit the FOSS Patents blog at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com
For further information please visit the FOSS Patents blog at http://fosspatents.blogspot.com

More info:

Published by: Florian Mueller on Jun 28, 2011
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

11/01/2011

pdf

 
 
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S
DAUBERT 
MOTIONCASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728MORRISON & FOERSTER LLPMICHAEL A. JACOBS (Bar No. 111664)mjacobs@mofo.comMARC DAVID PETERS (Bar No. 211725)mdpeters@mofo.comDANIEL P. MUINO (Bar No. 209624)dmuino@mofo.com755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018Telephone: (650) 813-5600 / Facsimile: (650) 494-0792BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDAVID BOIES (Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
)dboies@bsfllp.com333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504Telephone: (914) 749-8200 / Facsimile: (914) 749-8300STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (Bar No. 144177)sholtzman@bsfllp.com1999 Harrison St., Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612Telephone: (510) 874-1000 / Facsimile: (510) 874-1460ALANNA RUTHERFORD (Admitted
Pro Hac Vice
)575 Lexington Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY 10022Telephone: (212) 446-2300 / Facsimile: (212) 446-2350 (fax)ORACLE CORPORATIONDORIAN DALEY (Bar No. 129049)dorian.daley@oracle.comDEBORAH K. MILLER (Bar No. 95527)deborah.miller@oracle.comMATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (Bar No. 211600)matthew.sarboraria@oracle.com500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065Telephone: (650) 506-5200 / Facsimile: (650) 506-7114
 Attorneys for Plaintiff 
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE, INC.Defendant.Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’SOPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S
DAUBERT  
 MOTION
Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th FloorJudge: Honorable William H. Alsup
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document191 Filed06/28/11 Page1 of 28
 
 
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S
 DAUBERT 
MOTIONCASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................1SUMMARY OF THE COCKBURN EXPERT REPORT...................................................................4STANDARD OF REVIEW..................................................................................................................7ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................................8A. Professor Cockburn’s Calculations Do Not Rely On Any Unrecoverable Categories of Damages..........................................................................................................................................81. Professor Cockburn Correctly Considers Google’s Anticipated Android-RelatedAdvertising Revenues.........................................................................................................82. Professor Cockburn’s Consideration Of Oracle’s Anticipated Losses From TheInfringement Is Appropriate..............................................................................................113. Professor Cockburn Does Not Attach A Dollar Value To Fragmentation—But HisConsideration Of It Is Appropriate...................................................................................12B. Professor Cockburn’s Calculations Properly Account For The Value Of The IntellectualProperty At Issue...........................................................................................................................13C. Professor Cockburn’s Calculations Do Not Reflect Any “Legal Errors”.....................................161. Professor Cockburn Does Not Double Count Future Damages........................................162. Professor Cockburn Does Not Improperly Include Worldwide Revenues.......................173. Professor Cockburn Correctly Assesses The Hypothetical Negotiation As Of October2008..................................................................................................................................18D. Professor Cockburn Considered Copyright Damages...................................................................19E. The Cockburn Report Reflects Careful Consideration Of The Relevant Evidence AndMarket Realities............................................................................................................................201. Professor Cockburn Carefully Considered Evidence Regarding The SubstantialValue Of Java....................................................................................................................202. Professor Cockburn Correctly Considered Other Licenses..............................................213. Professor Cockburn Correctly Considered A License for an Incompatible Version of Java....................................................................................................................................22CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................23
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document191 Filed06/28/11 Page2 of 28
 
 
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE’S
 DAUBERT 
MOTIONCASE NO. CV 10-03561 WHA
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 
 Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp
.,435 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................................19
Conceptus, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
,2010 WL 5211454 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2010)...................................................................................19
Cornell Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.
,609 F. Supp. 2d 279 (N.D.N.Y. 2009)...............................................................................................14
 DataQuill Ltd. v. Handspring, Inc.
,2004 WL 1102309 (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2004).....................................................................................18
 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
,509 U.S. 579 (1993)....................................................................................................................passim
 Design Ideas, Ltd. v. Things Remembered, Inc.
,2009 WL 1259035 (C.D. Ill. May 6, 2009).......................................................................................18
 Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co
.,397 F.3d 1183 (9th Cir. 2005)..............................................................................................................8
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc.
,2006 WL 1390416 (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2006).....................................................................................8
Funai Elec. Co. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp
,616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..........................................................................................................15
Garcia v. Coleman
,2009 WL 799393 (N.D. Cal. March 24, 2009)..................................................................................10
Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. U.S. Plywood Corp.
,318 F.Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970).............................................................................................passim
 Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. Universal Avionics Sys. Corp.
,426 F. Supp. 2d 211 (D. Del. 2006)...................................................................................................16
 Honeywell Intern., Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp
.,378 F. Supp. 2d 459 (D. Del. 2005)...................................................................................................19
i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp.
,598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................................7, 20
 IGT v. Alliance Gaming Corp.
,2008 WL 7084605 (D. Nev. Oct. 21, 2008)......................................................................................15
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document191 Filed06/28/11 Page3 of 28

Activity (10)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->