Judge denies Oracle's motion to overturn patent ruling

Judge denies Oracle's motion to overturn patent ruling

Summary: Judge Alsup upholds jury's verdict on patents, arguing that remaining 10 jurors could have "rejected every word" of Oracle's primary expert witness.

TOPICS: Oracle

Maybe you can't blame Oracle for trying, but overturning the jury's verdict against patent infringement last week is all but a lost cause at this point.

Judge William Alsup at the U.S. District Court of Northern California issued a response on Wednesday to Oracle's motion for a judgment as a matter of law that Google infringed U.S. Patent Nos. RE38,104 and 6,061,520. Oracle is still trying to get a guilty charge on these after the jury flat out rejected both claims just one week ago.

Put simply, Alsup's answer to the motion: Denied.

The heart of Alsup's analysis and response to the motion essentially argues that there was enough evidence to support the jury's verdict clearing Google of any wrongdoing -- as far as patents are concerned.

Despite all of the missteps and confusion in the second phase in trial over technical terminology and related disputes between expert witnesses, Alsup still defended the jury's unanimous decision.

Even adopting Oracle’s belated effort to construe "data” to mean "the ultimate data to be obtained or used after symbolic reference resolution is performed," a reasonable jury could still find that Android did not infringe.

However, Alsup did comment at the end of his response about the testimony of Oracle's core expert witness, Dr. John Mitchell, a computer science professor at Stanford University.

In regards to the mistakes Mitchell made in his report, which was argued about back and forth between both Oracle and Google's lawyers towards the end of the trial, Alsup posited that "a reasonable jury could have rejected every word of his testimony."

Alsup acknowledged in his analysis that an appellate court might later find that there might be a reason somewhere along the line to require a new trial.

But until then, he continued, the Court is satisfied that jury instructions and subsequent verdict. To read Alsup's response in full, check it out below:

Oracle v. Google: Denial of Oracle's JMOL on Patents


Topic: Oracle

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion

    That's what vvhores get.
  • I cannot believe this...

    They get their butts handed to them and still they ask the judge to go against the Jury! time to give up on Oracle for good now.
    • It's not completely their fault. Lawyers are a special breed of sharks

      specializing in ambulance chasing and following faintest scent of potential money! But then again, those who hired them in the first place are not much better either.
      • Why?

        Because you deserve someone that knows the law inside and out and can defend you as well as is humanly possible?

        It's like saying that patents are bad. Patents aren't bad, because investors that pay money into your business want you to be the biggest monopoly out there. Investors that invest in your business don't want competition because it means money isn't going into their pocket.
      • @Joe_Raby

        one only has to look at the recent fishing expedition by law companies for suspect IP infringements to gain an inkling of their kind of ilk.

        Lawyers are parasites. They'll only defend you if you have the $$$, so any talk about the fairness of the application of law is utter tosh.
    • standard legal BS

      It's a crazy system that I do not fully agree with. But the way the game is played means that the lawyers must exhaust every option for their client and so it was expected that they would ask the Judge to overturn the jury. (I suspect they didnt think it would succeed but they had to give it a try.)
      • RE: standard legal BS

        Is absolutely right!!!

        Oracle's lawyers HAD to file the appeal, otherwise they could be accused of 'incompetent counsel'. I only wonder whose head will be offered up on a silver platter to pacify the [i]Wall Street [u]Anal[/u]ysts[/i]?
      • Ironically, being able to claim incompetent counsel...

        ...is probably Oracle's best hope of getting a retrial. Maybe it would have been better for Oracle if they had not made the motion to overturn the jury.
    • Oracle insisted on a jury in the first place. LOL!

  • Hmm...

    Can they take this to the Supreme Court?
    • I imagine so

      I think they can appeal this if they see fit to do so. However, I believe that the jury's interpretation of the facts is officially beyond debate, barring maybe a new trial (the 7th Amendment prohibits re-examination of facts already tried by jury, unless common law allows otherwise).

      Since the judge affirmed the jury's understanding of the facts, any further proceedings will likely pertain to the law.

      Of course, this is contingent upon whether Oracle would want to continue fighting this as well. From the looks of things, they only stand to get $200,000 for the copyright infringement.
      Third of Five
    • Dr. Mitchell's New Nick - The Kamikaze Kid

      Probably the last time he'll be hired as an expert witness ever. So I hope Oracle paid him enough to retire his career as an expert witness. By contradicting his own prior testimony and facts stated in his deposition. As the Judge stated; ""Judge Alsup upholds jurys verdict on patents, arguing that remaining 10 jurors could have 'rejected every word' of Oracles primary expert witness.""

      But it took the combination of Oracle's own contradictory expert testimony, this jury's astute understanding of just who was lying and this judge's mathematical, as well as coding ability to make it near impossible for Oracle to be granted an appeal on Patents!

      This patent case won't ever get near an appeal ever, without any legal grounds or mistakes committed by this Judge as a matter of law and this Jury as a matter of Fact. Oracle has no grounds to base an appeal on as it stands with this Judge's denial of their JMOL determination. Let alone will it ever go all the way to the Supreme Court. Sorry!!!
  • Aren't frivolous motions fineable?

    IANAL, but a finding of law that someone did something seems to me like a contradiction in terms.
    John L. Ries
    • Only if they admitted it

      The argument would be that the defendant stipulated to doing certain things, and that the jury misinterpreted the law when deciding that the certain things did not constitute infringement. It sounds like the judge did not buy the idea that the jury misinterpreted the law.
      Robert Hahn
  • Oracle

    oops, hey buddy can you spare a dime?
  • shameless Elli$on

    does not trust the good judgement of the jury because it does not make any $$$ of FOSS software.
    The Linux Geek
  • Just out of curiosity........

    I wonder if Darl McBride is working for Oracle now? :-P
  • So that guy Mitchell was an incompetent shill?

    Hope he got buckets of cash because he will never work again where people won't laugh at him. You would think he had more pride than that. Typical Oracle expert. heh.
  • Color me not remotely surprised.

    No-one [i]seriously[/i] expected the Judge to grant Oracle's motion, did they?
  • patent as i understood it to mean...

    patents are supposedly anti-monopoly. 20 years is supposedly enough time for anybody to recoup any expense incurred during the development of a product. after which it will be given to the public as a scaffolding for the next big thing. meaning it is a law to protect science and innovation from stagnating...