Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-300/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 GOOGLE’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

The parties could not agree to a stipulated form of order following the hearing on

Google’s motion to strike. Accordingly, the Court now rules as follows. The upcoming trial

will proceed as if we were back in the original trial, but now with the instructions on fair use

handed down by the court of appeals. No new copyrighted works will be allowed. Oracle’s

claims of copyright infringement in the upcoming trial are limited to infringement of Java SE

1.4 and Java SE 5.0. The only Android versions that will be in play in the upcoming trial will

be the Android versions presented to the jury in the first trial plus the following (by Google’s

agreement to be subject to the prior jury’s adverse finding that Google has infringed the overall

structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages in question):

• Gingerbread (released Dec. 2010);

• Honeycomb (released Feb. 2011);

• Ice Cream Sandwich (released Oct. 2011);

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1479 Filed 02/05/16 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

• Jelly Bean (released July 2012);

• KitKat (released Oct. 2013); and

• Lollipop (released Nov. 2014).

These six named Android releases comprise approximately 40

major and minor releases of Android.

As to all other versions and implementations of Android since the last operative

complaint preceding the last trial, Oracle will retain the right to sue Google for infringement in

a separate trial or proceeding. Among possibly others, our trial will not include

implementations of Android in Android TV, Android Auto, Android Wear, or Brillo. 

Nevertheless, if Oracle prevails at the trial and if an injunction is warranted, the equitable

remedy might extend beyond the versions expressly in play in the trial pursuant to the ordinary

scope of equitable relief.

The following portions of Oracle’s expert reports served on January 8, 2016, are

stricken: Dr. Chris Kemerer: ¶¶ 47–50 (including heading E) and 208 (references to Java SE 6

and SE 7); Mr. Robert Zeidman: ¶¶ 45, 106 (all text after “Java SE 5”), 120–125 (including

heading D), 146, and Exhibits V and W.

This order is without prejudice to possible admissibility of references to Java SE 6.0 and

Java SE 7.0 as they relate to other issues in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1479 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 2