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
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Oracle v. Google: Denial of Oracle's JMOL on Patents

Oracle v. Google: Denial of Oracle's JMOL on Patents

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4,590|Likes:
Published by Rachel King
ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW RE PATENT INFRINGEMENT
ORDER DENYING ORACLE’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW RE PATENT INFRINGEMENT

More info:

Published by: Rachel King on May 30, 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

05/13/2014

pdf

text

original

 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAORACLE AMERICA, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.,Defendant.No. C 10-03561 WHA
ORDER DENYING ORACLE’SMOTION FOR JUDGMENTAS A MATTER OF LAW REPATENT INFRINGEMENTINTRODUCTION
In this patent and copyright infringement action, Oracle moves for judgment as a matterof law that Google infringed Patent Nos. RE38,104 and 6,061,520. For the reasons stated below,the motion is
D
ENIED
.
STATEMENT
The procedural and technological background of this action has already been discussed(Dkt. Nos. 137, 433). This action began in 2010 with seven asserted patents. In May 2011, aclaim construction order was issued (Dkt. No. 137). Neither party filed a motion forreconsideration of that order. In January 2012, at the request of the parties, a supplemental claimconstruction order for additional terms was issued (Dkt. No. 704).By the time of trial in April 2012, Oracle had reduced the number of asserted patents andclaims to two patents and eight claims. This was done as an incentive to receive an earlier trialdate and because the withdrawn patents had received “final rejections” in PTO reexaminations.
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1201 Filed05/30/12 Page1 of 11
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282The issue of infringement was tried to a jury and Google dropped all affirmative defenses,including invalidity. The parties stipulated that indirect infringement (inducement andcontributory infringement) would automatically follow from a finding of direct infringement(Dkt. No. 1139). Because Oracle had not disclosed an infringement theory under the doctrine of equivalents, the only issue for the jury to decide was whether Android literally infringed theasserted claims in the ’104 and ’520 patents.The parties also narrowed down the claim limitations in disputed (TX 1106). Forthe ’104 patent, the dispute was whether Android met the limitation of having “instructionscontaining one or more symbolic references.” Claim 11 is a representative example of the claimlanguage:An apparatus comprising:a memory containing intermediate formobject code constituted by a set of instructions, certain of said instructionscontaining one or more symbolic references;anda processor configured to execute saidinstructions containing one or moresymbolic references by determining anumerical reference corresponding to saidsymbolic reference, storing said numericalreferences, and obtaining data in accordanceto said numerical references.(TX 1106) (for illustration, the disputed limitations are underlined). All asserted claims forthe ’104 patent contained the limitation that the “symbolic reference” must be in the instructions.Google stipulated that Android contained the non-underlined limitations in the asserted claims.For the ’520 patent, the dispute between the parties was whether Android satisfied the limitationof “simulating execution . . . to identify the static initialization of the array.” Claim 1 is arepresentative example of the claim language:A method in a data processing system for staticallyinitializing an array, comprising the steps of:compiling source code containing the arraywith static values to generate a class filewith a clinit method containing byte codesto statically initialize the array to the staticvalues;
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1201 Filed05/30/12 Page2 of 11
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283receiving the class file into a preloader;simulating execution of the byte codes of the clinitmethod against a memory without executing thebyte codes to identify the static initialization of thearray by the preloader;storing into an output file an instruction requestingthe static initialization of the array; andinterpreting the instruction by a virtual machine toperform the static initialization of the array.(col. 9). All asserted claims for the ’520 patent contained the “simulating execution” limitation.After a week-long trial, followed by another week of jury deliberation, the jury rendereda verdict of non-infringement for all asserted claims. Oracle moves to set aside the jury verdictas a matter of law under Rule 50.
ANALYSIS
Judgment as a matter of law may be granted against a party if it “has been fully heard onan issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for thatparty on that issue.” Rule 50(a). “Judgment as a matter of law may be granted only where, soviewed, the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion, and that conclusion is contrary tothe jury’s verdict.”
Wallace v. City of San Diego
, 479 F.3d 616, 624 (9th Cir. 2007).The final charge to the jury was and remains the complete statement of the law governingthe trial issues unless a timely and proper objection to the instructions was made and the Courtnow agrees that the objection has merit. The post-trial motions under Rule 50 must be evaluated,therefore, in light of that statement of the law and not in light of new citations, new legal theoriesand/or legal variations. Rule 50 is not an occasion for yet another round of summary judgmentbased on new slants on the case law. Of course, an appellate court might later find that anobjection to an instruction was preserved, well-taken and not harmless and so require a new trial.But until then, this Court is satisfied that the jury instructions were proper and both sides arebound by the jury instructions as the exclusive statement of the governing law for theinstant action.
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1201 Filed05/30/12 Page3 of 11

Activity (7)

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

You're Reading a Free Preview

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