Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-352/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

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

A prior order required Google to withdraw its third and fifth motions in limine from the

pretrial conference calendar without prejudice to consideration after the opening statements

(Dkt. No. 1591). By FRIDAY, APRIL 29 AT NOON, Oracle will please respond to Google’s

motions regarding the Lindholm email and regarding testimony suggesting violations of privacy

or antitrust laws. Google may reply by TUESDAY, MAY 3 AT NOON.

Also by FRIDAY AT NOON, Oracle shall file its full motion reflected in its fourth

summary motion in limine to exclude evidence and argument that copying was required to use

the Java language. In addition, Oracle may fully brief one additional summary motion in

limine. Google shall respond by TUESDAY AT NOON.

On the same schedule, Google shall file its full motion reflected in its first summary

motion in limine to preclude expert testimony that recites a preferred version of disputed facts. 

Google may also fully brief one additional summary motion in limine. Oracle shall respond by

TUESDAY AT NOON.

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1732 Filed 04/26/16 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

The full briefs on the summary motions in limine shall not exceed TWELVE PAGES IN

TOTAL (both motions), with any new exhibits not to exceed TWENTY PAGES.

The Court has read all of the parties’ summary motions in limine, and with the exception

of the foregoing (and the motion regarding the admissibility of the testimony of Jonathan

Schwartz regarding the existence of a legal claim by Sun, now resolved by stipulation), the

Court is inclined to deny all relief.

To be clear, this additional briefing is in addition to the briefing on Google’s earlier

motions that the Court ordered withdrawn. All of the motions referenced above will likely be

decided on the papers.

Finally, the parties shall please bring an agreed-on one-page list of all testifying

witnesses for use in the jury questionnaire to the final pretrial conference as well as the onepage statement of the case, the timeline, and all other items previously requested.

Dated: April 26, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1732 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 2