Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-421/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

REQUEST FOR FURTHER

BRIEFING RE RULE 50

MOTION

In connection with both pending Rule 50 motions, please advise what evidence in the

trial record addresses the causal mechanism by which Android (which was given away for free)

itself added to Google’s advertising revenue. That is, in the absence of Android, some other

platform would have filled the void — presumably Sun’s Java platform, if Oracle is correct —

and why wouldn’t Google continue to receive advertising revenue from those mobile users? 

Does the trial record for Phase One explain what, if anything, was special about Android itself

(as opposed to other platforms) leading to use of the Google search engine (and thus to greater

advertising revenue)? Oracle should please include a response in its reply on TUESDAY, and

Google should respond by WEDNESDAY AT NOON. 

The above question potentially goes to the extent of commercialism (factor one) and to

the harm caused to the market (factor four).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1955 Filed 05/23/16 Page 1 of 1