Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Oracle Reply Msa 1599529

Oracle Reply Msa 1599529

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10,426 |Likes:
Published by Arik Hesseldahl

More info:

Published by: Arik Hesseldahl on Apr 24, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

04/24/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
A
TTORNEYS
A
T
L
AW
 S
AN
F
RANCISCO
 
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ORACLE CORPORATION’S 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
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ORACLECORPORATION’S MOTION FORSUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Date: May 2, 2012Time: 1:30 PMPlace: Department 1CAssigned for all Purposes toThe Honorable James P. Kleinberg
E-FILED
Apr 23, 2012 4:49 PM
David H. Yamasaki
Chief Executive Officer/ClerkSuperior Court of CA, County of Santa ClaraCase #1-11-CV-203163 Filing #G-42217By G. Duarte, Deputy
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728i
A
TTORNEYS
A
T
L
AW
 S
AN
F
RANCISCO
 
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ORACLE CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCASE NO. 1-11-CV-203163
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1II. ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................1A. HP Has Finally Admitted That It Is Impossible to Reconcile ItsPosition With the Concept of a “Reaffirmation”...................................................1B. HP Cannot Use The Court to Write a Porting Agreement.....................................3C. HP Cannot Avoid Summary Adjudication By Claiming aPreference for Ambiguity......................................................................................7D. HP’s Contention That It Was Unable to Tell Its Own Executiveand Employees About the “Porting Agreement” Is Spurious................................9III. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................10
E-FILED: Apr 23, 2012 4:49 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-11-CV-203163 Filing #G-42217
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
 
A
TTORNEYS
A
T
L
AW
 S
AN
F
RANCISCO
 
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ORACLE CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONCASE NO. 1-11-CV-203163
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES
 
California Lettuce Growers v. Union Sugar Co.
,45 Cal. 2d 474 (1955).............................................................................................................4
Forecast Homes, Inc. v. Steadfast Ins. Co.
,181 Cal. App. 4th 1466 (4th Dist. 2010).................................................................................3
 Magna Dev. Co. v. Reed 
,
 
228 Cal. App. 2d 230 (1st Dist. 1964)....................................................................................3
Steller v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
,
 
189 Cal. App. 4th 175 (2d Dist. 2010)....................................................................................9
Weddington Prods. v. Flick 
,60 Cal. App. 4th 793 (2d Dist. 1998)......................................................................................4
White Point Co. v. Herrington
,268 Cal. App. 2d 458 (2d Dist. 1968).....................................................................................4
Winet v. Price
,4 Cal. App. 4th 1159 (4th Dist. 1992).....................................................................................9
Wolf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television
,162 Cal. App. 4th 1107 (2d Dist. 2008)................................................................................10
STATUTES
 California Civil Code § 1643....................................................................................................4, 7
E-FILED: Apr 23, 2012 4:49 PM, Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, Case #1-11-CV-203163 Filing #G-42217

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand 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)//-->