The judge in the Oracle versus Google patent infringement case has set a March 2012 trial date, established a three-part trial and ruled on several outstanding motions in the case.
The ongoing legal battle between Oracle
and Google has come one step closer to a head, with the presiding judge setting
a date for the trial to begin in March and ruling on several motions that give
both sides mini victories.
Jan. 4 was a busy day for the parties
in the Oracle versus Google patent infringement lawsuit. U.S. District Judge
William Alsup said the case will go to a jury trial that will start on or after
March 19, 2012. The trial had originally been set to start on Oct. 31, 2011,
but was postponed because of scheduling conflicts with the court.
Oracle had recently asked the court
to begin the trial as early as January, while
Google was fine with waiting until at least July for the trial to begin. Oracle's
claim was that the longer the company waits for relief from Google's alleged
patent infringement, the more time Google has to reap rewards from the
increasing consumer adoption of Android devices.
Alsup also stuck to his earlier
proposal for a three-part, or trifurcated, trial. The first part of the trial
will deal with the copyright infringement claims of the case, the second part
will deal with patent infringement claims, and the third part will deal with "all
remaining issues," including "damages and willfulness," said
Florian Mueller, author of
FOSS Patents, who has been watching the case
closely. Oracle and Google have seven days to file objections to the judge's
pretrial order.
Meanwhile, perhaps going to the issue
of "willfulness," Alsup ruled on Jan. 4 that a
possibly incriminating email by Google engineer
Tim Lindholm could be entered into evidence. Google had argued that the
Lindholm email should not be admitted into the case because it was subject to
attorney-client privilege or work-product rules.
Alsup
shot that argument down for the sixth time,
Mueller said. Google had argued that Lindholm was not in a position to analyze
whether Android infringed on Oracle's Java patents. But the judge cited
Lindholm's background, saying he was "quite knowledgeable about Java and
Android technology as separate platforms and any potential crossover between
the two platforms." Lindholm joined Google from Sun Microsystems, which
created Java, and he was part of the team that developed the Java language and
platform.
The Lindholm email reads:
"What we've actually been asked to
do (by Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin]) is to investigate what technical
alternatives exist to Java for Android and Chrome. We've been over a bunch of
these, and think they all suck. We conclude that we need to negotiate a license
for Java under the terms we need."
Earlier in the case, Alsup cited the
potential importance of the Lindholm email,
saying that all a competent lawyer might need is Lindholm's comments "and
the Magna Carta" to argue that Google had willfully infringed on Oracle's
patents. If found to have willfully infringed on Oracle's patents, Google could
be forced to pay triple damages by the court.
In another important ruling, Alsup
ruled that Oracle cannot exclude evidence relating to any ongoing U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (USPTO) re-examinations of Oracle's patents claimed in the
case. Google asked the USPTO to re-examine the Oracle patents. Recently, the
USPTO came back with a
"final" rejection of one of the Oracle patents
in the case. However, Oracle has the right to appeal that decision and may yet
do so.
In all, Alsup ruled on nine outstanding
motions in the case, including denying an Oracle motion to exclude evidence or
argument that third-party OEMs changed infringing components of Android and
restricting Oracle's ability to present evidence obtained from Motorola
Mobility, among other things.
Email
Print
