Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 A
TTORNEYS
 A
T
L
 AW
 S
 AN
F
RANCISCO
 
ORACLE CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCASE NO. 1-11-CV-203163
LATHAM & WATKINS
LLP
 Daniel M. Wall (Bar No. 102580)Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr. (Bar No. 120965)Sadik Huseny (Bar No. 224659)505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000San Francisco, California 94111-6538Telephone: (415) 391-0600Facsimile: (415) 395-8095ORACLE CORPORATIONDorian Daley (SBN 129049)Deborah K. Miller (SBN 095527)500 Oracle ParkwayM/S 5op7Redwood Shores, California 94065Telephone: (650) 506-5200Facsimile: (650) 506-7114Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-ComplainantORACLE CORPORATIONSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARAHEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,Plaintiff,v.ORACLE CORPORATION,Defendant.ORACLE CORPORATION,Cross-Complainant,v.HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,Cross-Defendant.CASE NO. 1-11-CV-203163Action Filed: June 15, 2011Trial Date: May 31, 2012
ORACLE CORPORATION’SMEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITSMOTION FOR SUMMARYADJUDICATION
Date: April 30, 2012Time: 9:00 AMPlace: Department 1CAssigned for all Purposes toThe Honorable James P. Kleinberg
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
 A
TTORNEYS
 A
T
L
 AW
 S
 AN
F
RANCISCO
 
ORACLE CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCASE NO. 1-11-CV-203163
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1II. BACKGROUND/STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................................................3A. The Oracle-HP Relationship..................................................................................3B. The Hurd Settlement Agreement...........................................................................6III. ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................11A. The Reaffirmation Provision Did Not Transform HistoricallyDiscretionary “Partnership” Activities Into New ContractObligations...........................................................................................................111. It is For the Court to Determine Whether the ReaffirmationProvision is Reasonably Susceptible to HP’s Interpretation....................122. The Contract’s Text is Not Reasonably Susceptible to anInterpretation Whereby a “Reaffirmation” FundamentallyTransforms the Nature of the Oracle-HP Partnership..............................143. The Drafting History Indisputably Shows that HP SoughtBut Oracle Rejected New Business Commitments WithRespect to Porting and Pricing.................................................................184. HP’s Proposed Interpretation Would Render theReaffirmation Provision Unenforceable..................................................215. The Parties’ Course of Dealing Confirms that PortingAgreements Have Specific Terms Not Found in theReaffirmation Provision...........................................................................23B. HP Has Not Honored the Reaffirmation Provision as a ProductSupport Agreement..............................................................................................25C. HP’s Implied and Quasi-Contract Claims Fail as a Matter of Law.....................26IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................30
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
  A
TTORNEYS
 A
T
L
 AW
 S
 AN
F
RANCISCO
 
ORACLE CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESIN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCASE NO. 1-11-CV-203163
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 
 Advanced Choices, Inc. v. Dep’t of Health Servs.
,182 Cal. App. 4th 1661 (2d Dist. 2010)................................................................................28
 Bustamante v. Intuit, Inc.
,141 Cal. App. 4th 199 (6th Dist. 2006).............................................................................2, 22
C & K Engineering Contractors v. Amber Steel Co.
,23 Cal. 3d 1 (1978)...............................................................................................................28
Caminetti v. Pac. Mut. L. Ins. Co.
,22 Cal. 2d 344 (1943)...........................................................................................................16
Carma Developers (Cal.), Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal., Inc.
,2 Cal. 4th 342 (1992)............................................................................................................27
Columbia Pictures Television v. Krypton Broad. of Birmingham, Inc.
,106 F.3d 284 (9th Cir. 1997)................................................................................................29
Conderback, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. of Cal., W. Operations
,239 Cal. App. 2d 664 (1st Dist. 1966)..................................................................................23
 Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc.
,39 Cal. 4th 384 (2006)................................................................................................2, 12, 14
 Eisenberg v. Alameda Newspapers, Inc.
,74 Cal. App. 4th 1359 (1st Dist. 1999).............................................................................2, 27
 Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television, Inc.
,523 U.S. 340 (1998)..............................................................................................................29
Garcia v. Truck Ins. Exch.
,36 Cal. 3d 426 (1984).......................................................................................................2, 21
 Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga
,175 Cal. App. 4th 1306 (4th Dist. 2009)...............................................................3, 13, 14, 21
 Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC 
,195 Cal. App. 4th 1602 (2d Dist. 2011)................................................................................25
 Joffe v. City of Huntington Park 
,201 Cal. App. 4th 492 (2d Dist. 2011)..................................................................................29
 Ladas v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n
,19 Cal. App. 4th 761 (1st Dist. 1993)...................................................................................22
 Lance Camper Mfg. Corp. v. Republic Indem. Co.
,44 Cal. App. 4th 194 (2d Dist. 1996)....................................................................................28
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more