ORACLE’S OPPOSITIONRE SUBMISSIONOFWILLFULNESS TOJURYCV10-03561 WHA
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 (
pro hac vice
) pbicks@orrick.comLISA T. SIMPSON (
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 (
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.UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONORACLE AMERICA, INC.,Plaintiff,v.GOOGLE INC.,Defendant.Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA
ORACLE’S OPPOSITION TO MOTIONTO PRECLUDE SUBMISSION OFWILLFULNESS TO JURY
Date: September 17, 2015Time: 8:00 a.m.Dept.: Courtroom 8, 19th Floor Judge: Honorable William H. Alsup
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1299 Filed08/20/15 Page1 of 33
- i -
ORACLE’S OPPOSITIONRE SUBMISSIONOFWILLFULNESS TOJURYCV10-03561 WHA
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage(s)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................iiINTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT....................................................................................................... 2FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..................................................................... 3A. Oracle’s Evidence That Google’s Infringement Is Willful...................................... 3B. Oracle’s Proposed Verdict Question And Jury Instruction On Willfulness. ........... 51. Proposed Jury Verdict Question .................................................................. 62. Existing Ninth Circuit Model Instruction 17.24 On Defendant’s Profits.... 63. Oracle’s Proposed Special Instruction......................................................... 6ARGUMENT................................................................................................................................... 7I. ORACLE IS ENTITLED TO A JURY VERDICT ON INFRINGER’S PROFITS............ 7A. The Copyright Act Requires Submission Of Infringer’s Profits To The Jury......... 7B. The Seventh Amendment Also Requires Submission Of Infringer’s ProfitsTo The Jury.............................................................................................................. 9II. WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT MUST BE DECIDED BY A JURY BECAUSE IT CANAFFECT THE CALCULATION OF INFRINGER’S PROFITS...................................... 10A. Section 504(b) Of The Copyright Act Of 1976 Adopted The Rule Of
Sheldon
.... 121.
Sheldon
Enshrined The Apportionment And Limited Deduction Rule..... 122. Congress Adopted
Sheldon
In The 1976 Act............................................. 13B. Courts Have Long Prevented Deliberate Wrongdoers From DeductingCertain Fixed Expenses In Calculating A Profits Remedy.................................... 17C. Section 504(b) Has Been Repeatedly Interpreted To Permit The LimitationOf “Deductible” Expenses..................................................................................... 19III. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS LIKEWISE DICTATE THAT THE JURYRENDER A VERDICT ON WILLFULNESS. ................................................................. 23IV. ORACLE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO AN EARLIER ELECTION OFREMEDIES........................................................................................................................ 24CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................. 25
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1299 Filed08/20/15 Page2 of 33
- ii -
ORACLE’S OPPOSITIONRE SUBMISSIONOFWILLFULNESS TOJURYCV10-03561 WHA
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)Federal Cases
Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc.
,191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951)...................................................................................................... 13
Allen-Myland, Inc. v. IBM Corp.
,770 F. Supp. 1014 (E.D. Pa. 1991)......................................................................................... 21
Andreas v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
,336 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................... 9
Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino
,501 U.S. 104 (1991)................................................................................................................ 16
Balsley v. LFP, Inc.
,691 F.3d 747 (6th Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................... 9
Bonner v. Dawson
,404 F.3d 290 (4th Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................... 9
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
,585 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 25
Carter Prods., Inc. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
,214 F. Supp. 383 (D. Md. 1963)............................................................................................. 13
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.
,501 U.S. 32 (1991) ................................................................................................................. 24
Concrete Pipe & Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Pension Trust
,508 U.S. 602 (1993)................................................................................................................ 22
Cotter v. Christus Gardens, Inc.
,238 F.3d 420, 2000 WL 1871698 (6th Cir. 2000) ............................................................ 24, 25
Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood
,369 U.S. 469 (1962)................................................................................................................ 13
Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp.
,36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994)..................................................................................................... 9
Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite
,561 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 24
E. E. Bolles Wooden-Ware Co. v. United States
,106 U.S. 432 (1882).......................................................................................................... 17, 18
Case3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document1299 Filed08/20/15 Page3 of 33