Oracle 2006 Annual Report Download - page 116

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 116 of the 2006 Oracle annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 133

  • 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
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133

Table of Contents
ORACLE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
May 31, 2007
and on September 21, 2004, it issued a Markman order. On June 21, 2005, plaintiffs withdrew their
allegations of infringement of the ‘229 patent. Discovery closed on July 1, 2005. Summary judgment motions
were filed on August 25, 2005, and the court held a hearing on these motions on October 17, 2005. On
March 14, 2006 the court ruled that Oracle’s Real Application Clusters database option did not infringe the
‘377 patent.
Oracle’s counterclaims against Mangosoft, alleging that the ‘377 patent is invalid and unenforceable, were the
only claims that the Court left open for trial. On April 21, 2006 Mangosoft filed a motion asking that
Mangosoft be allowed to appeal the noninfringement ruling immediately to the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals and that trial on Oracle’s counterclaims be stayed until that appeal has been resolved. Oracle filed a
brief opposing that motion on May 8, 2006. On March 28, 2007, the Court issued an order largely granting
the relief sought by MangoSoft. The Court dismissed Oracle’s counterclaims of invalidity and inequitable
conduct without prejudice and ordered the entry of judgment of noninfringement consistent with its March 14,
2006 order on summary judgment. On March 29, 2007, the Court entered Judgment in Oracle’s favor on the
issue of noninfringement and, on the same day, MangoSoft filed its notice of appeal to the Federal Circuit
stating that it was appealing (1) the Court’s March 14, 2006 order on summary judgment, (2) the Court’s
order of March 28, 2007, (3) the Court’s claim construction order of September 21, 2004, and (4) the entry of
judgment on March 29, 2007. Oracle has filed its statement of costs in the amount of approximately
$0.2 million in connection with the entry of judgment. MangoSoft’s opening brief on appeal is due on
August 6, 2007. Oracle’s responsive brief is due September 17, 2007, and MangoSoft’s reply is due on
October 1, 2007. On May 21, 2007, the parties were notified that the matter was selected for inclusion in the
Federal Circuit’s mandatory Appellate Mediation Program. A mediation was held on for June 20, 2007, but
the matter was not resolved. Accordingly, the appeal will proceed on the schedule outlined above.
SAP Intellectual Property Litigation
On March 22, 2007, Oracle Corporation, Oracle USA, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively,
“Oracle”) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against
SAP AG, its wholly owned subsidiary, SAP America, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, TomorrowNow,
Inc., (collectively, the “SAP Defendants”) alleging violations of the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
and the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, civil conspiracy, trespass, conversion, violation of
the California Unfair Business Practices Act, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective
economic advantage. Oracle alleged that SAP unlawfully accessed Oracle’s Customer Connection support
website and improperly took and used Oracle’s intellectual property, including software code and knowledge
management solutions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief. On April 10, 2007, Oracle filed a stipulation extending the time for the SAP Defendants to respond to
the complaint. On June 1, 2007, Oracle filed their First Amended Complaint, adding claims for infringement
of the federal Copyright Act and breach of contract, and dropping the conversion and separately pled
conspiracy claims. The SAP Defendants’ response is due July 2, 2007.
Other Litigation
We are party to various legal proceedings and claims, either asserted or unasserted, which arise in the
ordinary course of business, including proceedings and claims that relate to acquisitions we have completed
or to companies we have acquired or are attempting to acquire. While the outcome of these matters cannot be
predicted with certainty, we do not believe that the outcome of any of these claims or any of the above
mentioned legal matters will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
109
Source: ORACLE CORP, 10-K, June 29, 2007 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠