Google Pretrial Motions Blasted as a Stall Tactic

     (CN) – Oracle accused Google of stalling and gamesmanship in a pretrial battle over alleged infringements of Java patents in the Android phone.
     To date, Google has allegedly advanced some 42 new theories as to the validity of Oracle’s infringement claims between May 6 and July 13, leaving “Oracle still to guess as to what Google’s invalidity case will look like at trial,” which is scheduled to begin in October in San Francisco’s U.S. District Court.
     “Oracle has been whipsawed since the end of May,” attorney Marc Peters wrote in opposition to Google’s motion to supplement its theories once again. “Google’s behavior is a flagrant violation of the Patent Local Rules and the values they codify.”
     Oracle claims Google infringed on at least 50 Java patents in the popular Android phone. While Oracle owns the rights to some elements of Java, others are open source.
     “The parties are supposed to be narrowing the case, not expanding it right in the middle of expert discovery, which will be well under way by the time the court hears this motion,” Peters wrote late Wednesday. “The Patent Local Rules exist to ensure patent cases are litigated in a fair and orderly fashion. They are intended to have bite – parties must show good cause to change patent theories mid-stream. Google must show that it was diligent in requesting leave to amend from the court and that its actions have not prejudiced Oracle. Google fails on both counts.”
     Oracle claims that it will be prejudiced if Google is allowed to present new theories at this late stage.
     “One factor that courts consider whether a party has shown good cause is ‘whether the request to amend is motivated by gamesmanship,'” Peters wrote. “That may well be the case here. Since March, Google has requested that the court stay the litigation in favor of the reexaminations at every opportunity. Perhaps Google thought that its chances of obtaining a stay would be improved if it were not also simultaneously seeking to expand the scope of its invalidity case.”

%d bloggers like this: