Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-346/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 BRIEFING RE

ADMISSIBILITY OF PRIOR

STATEMENTS IN CASE

By MONDAY AT NOON, please supply memoranda (ten pages, double-spaced, no

attachments) on whether “findings” relied upon by an appellate court to reverse constitute “law”

of the case upon remand to the district court. Also brief whether if some fact appears

“undisputed” to the appellate court and is relied upon by that court for a reversal, the losing

party on remand is thereby estopped to dispute the item. How would this differ from conceding

a point solely for purposes of argument? Finally, regardless of the foregoing, should prior

factual statements of counsel be admitted in evidence (before the jury) to contradict factual

arguments the same counsel later make to the jury. Yes, this will place trial counsel in the

position of possibly having to testify, but shouldn’t counsel be held to their word? PLEASE

CITE AND QUOTE FROM DECISIONS ON POINT (EVEN IF ADVERSE TO YOUR

POSITION).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1719 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 1