Oracle Can’t Allege New Theories Against Google

     SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – A federal judge denied Oracle’s motion to add additional patent infringement theories to its ongoing litigation against Google and the internet search giant’s Android operating system, and also declined reconsider a ruling tossing out earlier contentions.



     The ruling is the latest blow to a case in which Oracle accuses Google of infringing on its patents for Java in creating the popular operating system.
     U.S. District Judge William Alsup ruled that Oracle failed to show good cause for the court to reconsider his ruling tossing part of an expert report submitted by John Mitchell in which Oracle tried to supplement its patent infringement contentions without leave from the court.
     Oracle arguedthat new local patent rules declare that disclosure requirements are more lax for allegations of indirect versus direct infringement and that its disclosure of certain Android devices that supposedly infringe on its patents did not preclude it from adding more devices later.
     Oracle did not cite any decision interpreting the rules but instead offered its own interpretation, according to the ruling. Alsup noted that Oracle could have but did not make the argument in its response to Google’s motion to strike part of Mitchell’s report in finding that a “new, untimely argument by the losing party is not a permissible ground for reconsideration.”
     Alsup also denied Oracle’s motion to amend its infringement contentions “on the eve of trial.” He noted that Oracle was warned that “it would not be given late opportunities to cure defects in its disclosures” and that “the time for amending infringement contentions has long passed.” The jury trial is scheduled to begin October 31.
     Google also filed a replyto Oracle’s opposition to its motion to strike more parts of Mitchell’s report. In the newest brief Google again claims that Mitchell tries to assert theories of patent infringement that are inconsistent with those that Oracle filed with the court.

%d bloggers like this: