Oracle 2009 Annual Report Download - page 219

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 alleges that TomorrowNow's business
model relied on illegal copies of Oracle's underlying software applications and that TomorrowNow used these copies as generic
software environments that TomorrowNow then used to create fixes and updates, to service customers and to train employees. The
Second Amended Complaint also alleges that these practices may have extended to other Oracle products, including Siebel products.
On October 8, 2008, Oracle filed a Third Amended Complaint pursuant to stipulation. The Third Amended Complaint made some
changes relating to the Oracle plaintiff entities (removing Oracle Corporation and adding Oracle Systems Corporation, Oracle
EMEA Ltd., and J.D. Edwards Europe Ltd.) but did not change the substantive allegations. On October 15, 2008, the SAP
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss portions of the Third Amended Complaint, and after full briefing, the court heard oral argument
on November 26, 2008. On December 15, 2008, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motion. The court
dismissed with prejudice the claims asserted by plaintiffs JD Edwards Europe Ltd. and Oracle Systems Corporation, and denied the
motion in all other respects. The parties are in the process of concluding discovery.
On July 15, 2009, Oracle filed a motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint to add claims for infringement of Oracle's
Siebel software and database programs. The Court granted Oracle's motion and Oracle filed its Fourth Amended Complaint on
August 18, 2009. The SAP Defendants filed an Answer to Oracle's Fourth Amended Complaint on August 26, 2009.
On August 26, 2009, the SAP Defendants filed an early motion for summary judgment directed to Oracle's damages theory. After
full briefing, the motion was heard on October 28, 2009. By order dated January 28, 2010, SAP's motion for partial summary
judgment was denied.
On March 3, 2010, the SAP Defendants and Oracle each filed motions for partial summary judgment. Opposition briefs were filed
on March 31, 2010, and reply briefs were filed April 14, 2010. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for partial summary
judgment on May 5, 2010, but has not yet ruled on the motions.
Trial is scheduled to begin on November 1, 2010.
Other Litigation
We are party to various other 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.
Source: ORACLE CORP, 10-K, July 01, 2010 Powered by Morningstar® Document Research℠