Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-347/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 RE POSSIBLE

IN CAMERA REVIEW OF

DOCUMENTS WITHHELD AS

PRIVILEGED BY GOOGLE

In reviewing the submissions regarding a possible in camera review of withheld-asprivileged Google documents on OpenJDK, the Court notes that Oracle is not asking for such a

review (though it says the Court has authority to do one) and goes so far as to argue that any

such review should not serve as a springboard to allow Google to present to the jury new

evidence (the withheld-as-privileged documents) to show that there was no lawyer-advised

consensus against using OpenJDK.

Consequently, the Court will take Google’s counsel at their word that they will make no

argument and present no line of evidence that would be contradicted by the withheld-asprivileged documents and that they will honor their professional obligations as officers of the

Court. No in camera review shall be done, at least at this time. Nevertheless, Google’s counsel

shall have available in the courtroom for potential review, if the need arises, all of the withheld

documents called out at page 2, line 14, through page 3, line 13 of Oracle’s brief (Dkt. No.

1713).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1720 Filed 04/22/16 Page 1 of 1