Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-03561-387/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

FURTHER ITEMS FOR

THURSDAY HEARING

In addition to the questions set forth in the agenda for Thursday’s hearing, the parties

shall please be prepared to address the following:

1. Could OEMs have made proprietary changes to an OpenJDKbased version of Android without implicating the viral effect of the GPLv2? If

so, how? If not, why not? To the extent the answers differ between a

hypothetical implementation in 2007 and the 2015 implementation in Android N,

please identify the differences.

2. To what extent is it true that the Classpath Exception disposed of

the requirement imposed on licensees (under the GPLv2) to contribute back to the

public domain all code written by the licensees using OpenJDK, including

reimplemented APIs?

Dated: May 4, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHA Document 1823 Filed 05/04/16 Page 1 of 1