Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
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
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    41 p.
    13-05-13 Google (Motorola) Reply Brief in Posner Appeal
    Florian_Muelle_439
    295 Reads
    7 p.
    13-05-09 Order Granting Apple Motion to Compel Google to Provide Se...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    362 Reads
    22 p.
    BlackBerry Amicus Brief on FRAND Issues (Appeal of J. Posner's Ruling)
    Florian_Muelle_439
    126 Reads
    34 p.
    Nokia's Amicus Curiae Brief on FRAND Issues (Appeal of J. Posner's ...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    223 Reads
    7 p.
    13-05-07 Apple Opposition to Google Et Al. Amicus Curiae Brief in S...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    1051 Reads
    23 p.
    13-05-03 Nokia Amicus Brief in Apple v Samsung Injunction Appeal
    Florian_Muelle_439
    176 Reads
    10 p.
    13-05-03 Microsoft Response to Motorola Letter Re. Breach Damages
    Florian_Muelle_439
    127 Reads
    3 p.
    13-05-03 Exhibit 6 to Microsoft Response to Motorola Letter
    Florian_Muelle_439
    113 Reads
    4 p.
    13-05-03 Exhibit 5 to Microsoft Response to Motorola Letter
    Florian_Muelle_439
    108 Reads
    3 p.
    13-05-03 Exhibit 4 to Microsoft Response to Motorola Letter
    Florian_Muelle_439
    107 Reads
    6 p.
    13-05-03 Exhibit 3 to Microsoft Response to Motorola Letter
    Florian_Muelle_439
    128 Reads
    5 p.
    13-05-03 Exhibit 2 to Microsoft Response to Motorola
    Florian_Muelle_439
    112 Reads
    3 p.
    13-05-03 Exhibit 1 to Microsoft Response to Motorola
    Florian_Muelle_439
    94 Reads
    8 p.
    13-05-01 Motorola Letter Re. Microsoft Damages Theories
    Florian_Muelle_439
    129 Reads
    7 p.
    13-05-01 Exhibits J-K to Motorola Letter Re. Microsoft Damages Theo...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    97 Reads
    77 p.
    13-05-01 Exhibits a-I to Motorola Letter Re. Microsoft Damages Theo...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    118 Reads
    4 p.
    13-05-01 Declaration in Support of Motorola Letter Re. Microsoft Da...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    133 Reads
    74 p.
    13-05-01 Apple v. Samsung Permanent Injunction Appeal Responsive Brief
    Florian_Muelle_439
    232 Reads
    3 p.
    13-04-29 Apple-Samsung Case Management Order (Limited Retrial Etc.)
    Florian_Muelle_439
    372 Reads
    3 p.
    13-04-25 Microsoft v Motorola FRAND Rate FoFaCoL - Unofficial Table...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    818 Reads
    207 p.
    13-04-25 Microsoft-Motorola FRAND Rate Determination
    Florian_Muelle_439
    2264 Reads
    10 p.
    13-04-16 Apple Declaration Regarding Patent Reexaminations
    Florian_Muelle_439
    514 Reads
    64 p.
    13-04-10 Apple v. Samsung Claim Construction Order
    Florian_Muelle_439
    938 Reads
    2 p.
    13-04-09 Order Denying Case Management Conference and Extending Mar...
    Florian_Muelle_439
    694 Reads
    2 p.
    13-04-02 Apple v. Samsung Case Management Order
    Florian_Muelle_439
    789 Reads
    Notes
    Load more