Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-401/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 REGARDING

DUIMOVICH DEPOSITION

The questioning of John Duimovich (the IBM Rule 30(b)(6) designee) exceeded the

scope of the noticed subject matter, which was IBM’s use of code derived from the Apache

Harmony Project. Asking questions about code contributed by IBM to Apache Harmony

exceeded this subject. Nevertheless, that line of question will be allowed because the witness,

even if regarded as a normal witness rather than as a corporate designee, was competent to

answer the code-contributed questions. No prejudice has been shown.

As for the questions concerning the noticed topic — IBM’s use of code derived from the

Apache Harmony Project — those questions and answers will also be allowed. While it is true

that IBM had a license with Sun (and thus arguably didn’t need any Apache Harmony license),

Oracle claimed in the last trial that Google had not shown that IBM had ever used the Apache

Harmony Java APIs in any products. The testimony shows to the contrary. Whether or not

IBM had an umbrella license directly from Sun, the testimony shows that IBM in fact used the

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1867 Filed 05/11/16 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

Apache Harmony Java APIs. One reading of the testimony is that IBM did so without regard to

the umbrella license. Google, however, must include the testimony that IBM had a license.

Other rulings will be in the margin of the transcript. For all deposition designation,

when a passage is marked as needed for “completeness” and the judge disagrees, the judge

writes in “out.” Be aware, however, that the very same testimony might be admissible on some

other ground at the behest of the same proponent. The judge is just ruling based on the way the

passage is served up.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1867 Filed 05/11/16 Page 2 of 2