Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-342/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

PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS

RE FACTOIDS FROM COURT

OF APPEALS OPINION

Google raises the point that if we hold it to the Federal Circuit’s findings on commercial

use, statements that help Google should also be included in the instructions to the jury. The

Court asked the parties to meet and confer on this issue, but counsel have failed the Court.

The Court proposes to advise the jury that “Google admittedly copied portions of the

API packages and did so for what were commercial purposes,” deleting the word “purely” as

argumentative. Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

For even-handedness, the Court also proposes to instruct the jury that “Oracle concedes

that Google and others could employ the Java language — much like anyone could employ the

English language to write a paragraph without violating the copyrights of other English

language writers. And, that Google may employ the ‘package-class-method’ structure much

like authors can employ the same rules of grammar chosen by other authors without fear of

infringement.” Id. at 1368.

The foregoing would provide each side with one cogent, relevant statement from the

court of appeals opinion.

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1711 Filed 04/21/16 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 Court further asks counsel to agree that the following statements from the opinion

may be provided to the jury as established facts in the case:

• “Although Android uses the Java programming language, it is

undisputed that Android is not generally Java compatible.” Id. at

1351.

• “Oracle licensed Java ME for use on feature phones and

smartphones. Sun/Oracle has never successfully developed its own

smartphone platform using Java.” Id. at 1350.

The general principle is that if any statement made by the court of appeals is to be

deemed established in our trial, then we must be even-handed and give both sides the benefit of

favorable points in the same opinion. Of course, counsel may agree on any set of points within

the opinion as they wish.

By TUESDAY, APRIL 26 AT NOON, counsel will please stipulate to the above or explain

why the above proposals should not be adopted. Absent agreement (to achieve evenhandedness), none of the statements will be deemed admitted without prejudice to the

possibility that briefs and/or oral argument will be admitted without prejudice to proof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1711 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2