It’s absolutely amazing that Oracle, having some of the most expensive lawyers on the planet, cannot even follow the rules of evidence and procedure. Oracle cannot even provide expert witness to many of its patent claims. The simple thing required by the judge, they have not done:
” On January 6, 2012, Oracle will provide an identification, for each of the 26 asserted claims, of each Oracle product, Oracle-licensed product, Sun product, or Sun-licensed product (â€œOracle Productsâ€) that practice or have practiced the claim. Oracle will also identify the fact witnesses who possess information supporting Oracleâ€™s contentions that the Oracle Products practice or have practiced the asserted claims, as well as provide a summary of testimony Oracle intends to elicit at trial from those witnesses regarding those Oracle Productsâ€™ practice of the claims. Oracle will also provide source code citations and/or other documentation supporting Oracleâ€™s contentions that the Oracle Products practice the asserted claims.”
Instead Oracle tried another snowjob having prevented its witnesses from informing Google of many things in depositions and so disqualified them from testifying on some matters at trial as simple as how Oracle’s products practise the claimed patents. This all goes to damages that are surely not capable of reaching $1billion let alone the $billions Oracle demanded. Oracle was ordered to produce citations of source code and did not. The judge is likely to stomp all over Oracle for defying his order.
Typical of Oracle’s response is this:
“1. The ‘104 Patent
Google’s first objection to Oracle’s identification of products that practice the ‘104 patent is that it cannot respond because Oracle supposedly failed “to actually cite any source code or documentation” reflecting how the patent is practiced. (Google Response at 3.) Google repeats this same rote objection for each of the six patents-in-suit. (See id. at 6, 9, 11, 12, 13.) The objection is baseless as to the ‘104 patent and as to the other five patents as well. Oracle identified specific source code files for each of the products it claims practices the six patents. (See, e.g., Oracle Response at 2-12.) These are not “a laundry list of names of various source code files” as Google claims. (Google Response at 1.) To the contrary, Oracle has identified specific source code files relevant to each product or product version â€” typically less than five files â€” that illustrate where and how the patent is practiced. (See, e.g., Oracle Response at 2, 12.) If Google felt these responses were somehow deficient, it could have raised that with Oracle before its response was due. But it never did. In fact, although it had a full two weeks to respond, Google’s counsel waited until three days before Google’s response was due to ask for copies of only some of the referenced source code files (which had all been produced last year as part of the parties’ procedure for producing confidential source code). Google did not make a good faith effort to prepare its response or to meet and confer during this two-week period, and if it did not have enough time to review the files to verify Oracle’s position, it has only itself to blame.”
A non-expert naming a file as practising a claim of a patent won’t cut it IMHO. I doubt the judge will be impressed by Oracle’s argument when there’s nothing in the experts’ reports to support the idea that Oracle practised the patents. Google argues that Oracle’s experts are not expert as they had no intimate knowledge during deposition.