Scribd

J

OINT

S

TATUS

R

EPORT

CV10-03561WHA

963929.01

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ORRICK, HERRINGTON &SUTCLIFFE LLPKAREN G. JOHNSON-MCKEWAN (SBN 121570)kjohnson-mckewan@orrick.comANNETTE L. HURST (SBN 148738)ahurst@orrick.comGABRIEL M. RAMSEY (SBN 209218)gramsey@orrick.com405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105Tel: 1.415.773.5700 / Fax: 1.415.773.5759PETER A. BICKS (admitted

pro hac vice

) pbicks@orrick.comLISA T. SIMPSON (admitted

pro hac vice

)lsimpson@orrick.com51 West 52

nd

Street, New York, NY 10019Tel:1.212.506.5000 / Fax: 1.212.506.5151BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLPDAVID BOIES (admitted

pro hac vice

)dboies@bsfllp.com333 Main Street, Armonk, NY 10504Tel: 1.914.749.8200 / Fax: 1.914.749.8300STEVEN C. HOLTZMAN (SBN 144177)sholtzman@bsfllp.com1999 Harrison St., Ste. 900, Oakland, CA 94612Tel: 1.510.874.1000 / Fax: 1.510.874.1460ORACLE CORPORATIONDORIAN DALEY (SBN 129049)dorian.daley@oracle.comDEBORAH K. MILLER (SBN 95527)deborah.miller@oracle.comMATTHEW M. SARBORARIA (SBN 211600)matthew.sarboraria@oracle.comRUCHIKA AGRAWAL (SBN 246058)ruchika.agrawal@oracle.com500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, CA 94065Tel: 650.506.5200 / Fax: 650.506.7117

ttorneys for Plaintiff

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.KEKER & VAN NEST LLPROBERT A. VAN NEST (SBN 84065)rvannest@kvn.comCHRISTA M. ANDERSON (SBN 184325)canderson@kvn.comDANIEL PURCELL (SBN 191424)dpurcell@kvn.com633 Battery StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111-1809Telephone:415 391 5400 Facsimile:415 397 7188KING & SPALDING LLPBRUCE W. BABER (

pro hac vice

)1185 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036Tel: 212.556.2100Fax: 212.556.2222

Attorneys for Defendant

GOOGLE INC.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONORACLE AMERICA, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.,Defendant.Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA

JOINT STATUS REPORT

Date: July 30, 2015Time: 11:00 a.m.Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup

Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1273 Filed07/23/15 Page1 of 14

-2-

J

OINT

S

TATUS

R

EPORT

CV10-03561WHA

963929.01

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 6, 2015 (ECF No. 1269), and with reference to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), Civil Local Rule 16-10, and the Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California for Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) and Defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) submit this Joint Status Report in advance of the status conference scheduled for July 30, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. This Joint Status Report seeks to give the Court an update of all relevant matters since trial took place in this matter in April and May of 2012.

1.Jurisdiction and Service

No issues exist regarding jurisdiction and venue. The Court has jurisdiction over the remaining copyright claims under 28 U.S.C. §1331 (federal question) and § 1338(a) (actions asserting claims of,

inter alia

, copyright infringement). Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) because Google conducts business within this judicial district. Oracle isalso based in this district. No parties remain to be served.

2.Facts

Oracle is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood City, California 94065. Oracle does businessin the Northern District of California. Google is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal place of business at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, California 94043. Oracle sued Google on August 12, 2010, alleging that Google’s Android mobile operating system infringed certain of Oracle’s Java-related patents and copyrights. Before trial, Oracle dismissed with prejudice all claims for relief based on five of the seven patents that it had originally assertedagainst Google. ECF 1211 (Final Judgment). The case was trifurcated before proceeding to trial.

See

ECF No. 675 at 2-3. Phase One covered liability and defenses for Oracle’s claims against Google for copyright infringement.

Id.

Phase Two covered liability and defenses for Oracle’s claims against Google for patent infringement.

Id.

And Phase Three, if necessary, was to cover “all remaining issues,” including


-3-

J

OINT

S

TATUS

R

EPORT

CV10-03561WHA

963929.01

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728damages and willfulness.

Id.

Phase One and Phase Two proceeded to trial in April and Mayof 2012. At the conclusion of Phase One, the jury found that Google had infringed Oracle’s copyright in the overall structure, sequence and organization of 37 Java API packages but did not reach a verdict as to whether Google’s infringement constituted “fair use.” ECF No. 1089 at 1. The jury also found that Oracle had not proven that Google infringed the documentation for the 37 Java API packages, the source code for eight decompiled security files, or the English-language comments in two other files. The jury also found that Google infringed Oracle’s copyright in a Java method called “rangeCheck.”

Id.

at 1-2. At the conclusion of Phase Two, the jury found that Oracle had not proven that Google had infringed the patents that remained in the case. ECFNo. 1190 at 1-2. With respect to Oracle’s claims for copyright infringement, after the jury verdict, this Court denied Oracle’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) regarding fair use, the API documentation, and the English-language comments, as well as Google’sJMOL motion with respect to the rangeCheck method. ECF No. 1119. This Court granted Oracle’s motion for JMOL with respect to the eight decompiled security files. ECF No. 1123. On May 31, 2012, this Court held that “the particular elements” of the 37 Java API packages replicated by Google were not copyrightable. ECF No. 1202 at 41. The Court entered Final Judgment in favor of Google on all aspects of Oracle’s copyright claims, except as to the rangeCheck method and the eight decompiled files, for which the Court entered final judgment for Oracle and against Google in the amount of zero dollars per a prior stipulation entered into by the parties. ECF No. 1211. The Court further entered Final Judgment for Oracle and against Google as to Google’s equitable defenses of waiver and implied license.

Id.

The Court did not rule on Google’s equitable defenses of equitable estoppel and laches due to mootness.

Id.

Oracle appealed this Court’s Order regarding copyrightability and asked the Federal Circuit tofind, as a matter of law, that Google’s infringement of Oracle’s copyrights in that code was not “fair use.” Google cross-appealed from the portion of this Court’s final judgment in Oracle’s favor as to the rangeCheck method and the eight decompiled files.
