Oracle 2007 Annual Report Download - page 116

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 116 of the 2007 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 136

  • 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
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136

Table of Contents
ORACLE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
May 31, 2008
Federal Circuit heard oral argument in the appeal on March 3, 2008. On May 14, 2008, the Federal Circuit
issued an opinion and order affirming the District Court’s grant of Oracle’s motion for summary judgment of
noninfringement. Plaintiffs’ time to seek reconsideration of the Federal Circuit’s decision has expired. We
believe that we have meritorious defenses against this action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it.
EpicRealm Intellectual Property Litigation
On June 30, 2006, we filed a declaratory judgment action against EpicRealm Licensing, LP (“EpicRealm”) in
the United States District Court, District of Delaware, seeking a judicial declaration of noninfringement and
invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,894,554 (the ‘554 Patent) and 6,415,335B1 (the ‘335 Patent). We filed the
lawsuit following the resolution of an indemnification claim by one of our customers related to EpicRealm’s
assertion of the ‘554 Patent and ‘335 Patent against the customer in a patent infringement case in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
On April 13, 2007, EpicRealm filed an Answer and Counterclaim in which it: (1) denies our noninfringement
and invalidity allegations; (2) alleges that we have willfully infringed, and are willfully infringing, the ‘554
Patent and ‘335 Patent; and (3) requests a permanent injunction, an award of unspecified money damages,
interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. On May 7, 2007, we filed an Answer to EpicRealm’s infringement
counterclaim, denying EpicRealm’s infringement allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.
The parties currently are conducting discovery. Briefing on claims construction and summary judgment
motions is scheduled for the summer of 2008. A Markman hearing and oral argument on summary judgment
motions are both set for September 26, 2008. Trial is scheduled to begin on January 12, 2009. We believe that
we have meritorious defenses against EpicRealm’s counterclaims, and we will continue to vigorously defend
against those counterclaims.
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 its 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. On July 2, 2007 the SAP Defendants’ filed their Answer and Affirmative Defenses, acknowledging
that TomorrowNow had made some “inappropriate downloads” and otherwise denying the claims alleged in
the First Amended Complaint. The parties are engaged in discovery and continue to negotiate a Preservation
Order. At case management conferences held on February 12, 2008 and April 24, 2008, Oracle advised the
Court that Oracle intends to file a Second Amended Complaint, based on new facts learned during the course
of discovery.
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 materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
110
Source: ORACLE CORP, 10-K, July 02, 2008 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠