Oracle 2007 Annual Report Download - page 115

Table of Contents
ORACLE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
May 31, 2008
complaint. The last dismissal was with prejudice. On September 1, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings. The revised
second amended complaint named our Chief Executive Officer, our then Chief Financial Officer (who
currently is Chairman of our Board of Directors) and a former Executive Vice President as defendants. This
complaint was brought on behalf of purchasers of our stock during the period from December 14, 2000
through March 1, 2001. Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and misleading statements about our
actual and expected financial performance and the performance of certain of our applications products, while
certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in violation of federal securities laws. Plaintiffs
further alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock while in possession of material non-public
information. Plaintiffs also allege that the defendants engaged in accounting violations. On July 26, 2007,
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment
against all defendants and a motion for summary judgment against our Chief Executive Officer. On August 7,
2007, plaintiffs filed amended versions of these motions. The parties’ summary judgment motions are fully
briefed. On October 5, 2007, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking a default judgment against defendants or
various other sanctions because of defendants’ alleged destruction of evidence. This motion is fully briefed. A
hearing on all these motions was held on December 20, 2007. The court has not yet ruled on any of these
motions. On April 7, 2008, the case was reassigned to a new judge, who has scheduled a status conference for
July 18, 2008. On June 27, 2008, the court ordered supplemental briefing on plaintiffs’ sanctions motion.
Currently, no date has been set for trial. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages plus interest, attorneys’ fees and
costs, and equitable and injunctive relief. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action,
and we will continue to vigorously defend it.
Mangosoft Intellectual Property Litigation
Mangosoft, Inc. and Mangosoft Corporation filed a patent infringement action against us in the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire on November 22, 2002. Plaintiffs alleged that we are
willfully infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,148,377 (the ‘377 patent) and 5,918,229 (the ‘229 patent), which they
claim to own. Plaintiffs seek damages based on our license sales of the Real Application Clusters database
option, the 9i and 10g databases, and the Application Server, and seek injunctive relief. We denied
infringement and asserted affirmative defenses and counterclaimed against plaintiffs for declaratory judgment
that the ‘377 and ‘229 patents are invalid, unenforceable and not infringed by us. On May 19, 2004, the court
held a claims construction (Markman) hearing, 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 connection with the entry of judgment.
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 June 20, 2007, but the matter was not
resolved. Mangosoft filed its opening appeal brief in the Federal Circuit on August 6, 2007. Oracle filed its
responsive brief on November 16, 2007, and Mangosoft filed its reply brief on January 8, 2008. The
109
Source: ORACLE CORP, 10-K, July 02, 2008 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠