Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-432/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

GOOGLE INC.,

Defendant. /

No. C 10-03561 WHA

ORDER RE FOLLOW UP FROM

HEARING ON AUGUST 17, 2016

By THURSDAY AUGUST 25, AT NOON, Christa Anderson, counsel for Google, shall

submit a sworn statement explaining why the discovery responses referenced in Court yesterday

were not updated, including the full extent to which counsel knew Google’s intention to launch

a full version of Marshmallow, including the Google Play Store, for Chrome OS.

By the same date and time, Annette Hurst, counsel for Oracle, shall submit a sworn

statement setting forth, after full inquiry, the full extent to which Oracle neglected to update its

discovery responses by reason, in whole or in part, of one or more rulings by the judge. The

same statement shall explain why counsel repeatedly represented that the Jones v. Aero/chem

decision required an “evidentiary hearing” when that decision, as it turns out, made no mention

of an “evidentiary hearing” and instead remanded because no “hearing” or other consideration

at all had been given to the issue of discovery conduct by the district judge.

By the same date, counsel shall meet and confer and advise the Court whether the form

of judgment should be amended to reflect that it is not a final judgment but a Rule 52(c)

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2036 Filed 08/18/16 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

judgment on partial findings, given that Oracle is entitled to challenge further uses of Android

herein. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 2036 Filed 08/18/16 Page 2 of 2