Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-416/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 RESPONSE

RE TECHNICALLY NECESSARY

COPYING

In connection with the pending Rule 50 motion by Oracle, the Court asks both sides to

explain how, if at all, Java programmers knew which classes and methods in the Java library

were technically required to write in the language and which were not. Is this explained in the

book? In the code comments? Or would a programmer have to deconstruct the Java language

itself to find the invocations of classes and methods in the library? Please stick to the trial

record. If the essential ones were not readily identifiable and the essential ones were mixed in

with the nonessential ones, should all be treated as fair use? Google should answer in its

opposition due Saturday and Oracle may file a reply brief on TUESDAY BY NOON. 

Dated: May 20, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1934 Filed 05/20/16 Page 1 of 1