Blog

Oracle seeks billions from Google in patent/copyright suit over Android software

Authors

In a case pending in the NDCA before Judge Alsup, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Case No. CV 10-03561 WHA, Oracle is accusing Google of infringing copyrights and patents in Google's Android software. Oracle's IP claims stem from its acquisition of Sun Microsystems (now Oracle America) and IP related to Java software.

Google filed a motion to seal its Daubert submission. Google claims that the submission should be redacted in a number of ways due to references to Oracle AEO information. Oracle filed an opposition to the motion to seal (see Oracle's opposition at http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0252000/252053/Oracle%20response.pdf), in which Oracle claims that Google's motion goes too far. Oracle argued that several of Google's redactions which summarize Oracle's damages claims should not be hidden from public view.

The following are the redactions that Oracle objected to. Note items d and e, which indicate that Oracle is seeking "billions of dollars in damages":

  1. a. Information that is clearly in the public domain (for example, its general reference to the overall value of Oracle's acquisition of Sun);
  2. b. Google's erroneous or distorted descriptions of the facts (for example, its incorrect assessment of the value of one of the patents-in-suit);
  3. c. Google's misrepresentation of aspects of Professor Cockburn's damages analysis (for example, the misrepresentation that Professor Cockburn included all Google advertising revenue from all Android devices and all harm from fragmentation of Java in his valuation calculations, the misrepresentation that he applied a 50% royalty rate as part of his analysis a misrepresentation that Google admits in its full Daubert motion and the misrepresentation of the amount of Professor Cockburn's ultimate damages opinion);
  4. d. Isolated words such as "multi-billion" and "valueless"; and
  5. e. Any and all references to the fact that Oracle's damages claims in this case are in the billions of dollars.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.