Oracle 2011 Annual Report Download - page 133

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 133 of the 2011 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 140

  • 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
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140

ORACLE CORPORATION
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
May 31, 2011
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. 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’ 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. Trial was set to begin on May 16, 2011. On May 13, 2011, however, the parties reached
agreement on a settlement agreement and patent license agreement. All claims in the matter were dismissed, with
prejudice, on May 16, 2011.
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.
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.
131