Oracle 2009 Annual Report Download - page 137

Table of Contents
ORACLE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
May 31, 2010
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. In August 2007, the patents-in-suit were sold to Parallel Networks, LLC, which thereafter substituted in as the
defendant in place of EpicRealm.
The parties have completed discovery and filed briefing on claim construction and summary judgment motions. A Markman hearing and oral argument on
summary judgment motions were held October 3, 2008. A court-ordered mediation was held on October 8, 2008, which did not result in a settlement. On
December 4, 2008, the court issued an order granting summary judgment that our Web Cache, Internet Application Server, and RAC Database do not infringe the
patents. The court also denied our motion for summary judgment that the patents are invalid, and denied in part and granted in part Parallel Networks’s motion
for summary judgment that certain prior art references do not invalidate the patents through anticipation. Trial was scheduled to begin on January 12, 2009, on
issues of invalidity and inequitable conduct. On December 23, 2008, the parties reached an agreement allowing Parallel Networks to immediately appeal the
court’s summary judgment order and preserving Oracle’s invalidity and inequitable conduct claims in the event that the matter is remanded for trial at a later
time. On January 23, 2009, Parallel Networks filed a notice of appeal. A court-ordered mediation was held on June 1, 2009, which did not result in a settlement.
The appellate court heard oral argument on December 10, 2009 after full briefing. On April 28, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued a decision vacating the district
court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in Oracle’s favor and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. On May 28, 2010,
Oracle filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Federal Circuit which was denied on June 11, 2010. We believe that we have meritorious defenses against this
action, and we will continue to vigorously defend it.
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 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 intended to file a Second Amended Complaint, based on new facts learned during the course of discovery.
On July 28, 2008, Oracle filed a Second Amended Complaint, which added additional allegations based on facts learned during discovery. Among the new
allegations contained in the Second Amended Complaint, Oracle
133
Source: ORACLE CORP, 10-K, July 01, 2010 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠