United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the following constitutesthefinal pretrialorderandrulingsonmost motions except totheextentmodified byorder completed. Thejurywilldeliberateaccordingtoaschedulebedetermined bythem. GOOGLEINC., v. ORACLE AMERICA,INC., issues expresslyidentified for trialremain inthecase. complaint, answer,andanycounterclaims, cross-claims, orthird-partycomplaints, continue from disclosed inthejointproposed finalpretrialorder,lessanyexcludedorlimited byanorder opinions willfollow. Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page1of11 .This caseshallgotoa 1. .Theissuestobetriedshallthosesetforthinthejointproposedpretrialorder 2. F .Rulingsonmost motions 3. .Exceptforgood cause, eachpartyislimited tothewitnessesand exhibits 4. OR G 7:30 Defendant. Plaintiff, OOD A . FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA M AUSE . TO IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT 1:00 andafterfour P . M . , MondaythroughFriday,excludingholidays,until JURY TRIAL in limine in limine in limine / . Thisfinalpretrialordersupersedesallthe aresummarized below,andmemorandum

on FINAL PRETRIALORDER No. C10-03561WHA hearingsandafinalpretrialconference, M AY 9,

2016 , at 7:30 A . in limine M . , andshall i.e. : , onlythe United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The jurywillbeinstructedonthephasedstructureof thetrial. shall presentevidencefirst inphaseone,andOraclewillpresentevidencefirst inphasetwo. phase twoconcerningdamages andwillfulness. possibility, thejurytrialwillproceedintwophaseswithphaseoneconcerningfairuseand circumstances willwarrantthemodification asthefirst phasedevelops.Subjectonlytothat defense wererejected).It isunlikelythattheCourtwillpursuethisalternativebut,conceivably, first tobefollowedbyfurtherargument anddeliberationsondamages ifGoogle’sfairuse phased arguments, deliberations,andverdicts(suchthatthefairuseverdictwouldberendered some chancethattheCourtwilldecidetocollapseallevidenceintooneproceedingbutpreserve order maintains theplantobifurcate;however,ascaseproceedsinfirstphase,thereis (Dkt. No.1710).Thatorderandthefinalvers reviewing jurorquestionnairesandvoirdireissetforthintheCourt’sFinalJurySelectionPlan If, despitebeingefficient, non-duplicative,andnon-argumentative intheuseofallotted against thelimit; however,anycross-examination limit. AttorneyJohnCooper’s directexamina for useduringphasetwo.Openingstatements andclosingarguments shall notcountagainstthe one, and examination, cross-examination, re-directexamination, re-crossexamination, etc.)during phase phase twowillbedetermined atalaterdate. address bothfairuseanddamages. Theamount oftime forclosingsandopeningsduring Oracle shallmake thefirstopeningstatement. Theopeningstatements inphaseonemay be used,subjecttotherulesofevidence. in limine Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page2of11 .Each sideshallhave 8. With respecttoOracle’srequestreconsideranddispensewithbifurcation,this 7. .Eachsideshallhave 9. Ajuryof Anystipulatedfactsmust bereadorallytoincludedintherecord. 6. 5. . Materialsorwitnessesusedsolelyforimpeachment neednotbedisclosedandmay FIVE HOURS duringphasetwo.Anytime remaining from phaseonemay bebanked TEN PERSONS FIFTEEN HOURS MINUTES SIXTY shall beused.Theprocedurefordisseminating and tion ofProfessorJames Kearlshallnot count ion ofthequestionnaireareappendedhereto. 2 Due totherespectiveburdensofproof,Google of ProfessorKearlbythe partiesshallcount. foropeningstatements duringphaseone.

to examine witnesses(countingdirect United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 attorneys withopportunitiestoexamine witnessesattrial. information availableathttp://cand.uscourts.gov/jurypc. is properlypreparedbeforethejurybeginsitsdeliberations.Counselshouldreview Written NoticeofNextSevenWitnesses, datedApril2,2012(Dkt. No.851). Additionally, thepartiesshallcomply withtheproceduresetforth intheOrderRe Rolling, http://www.cand.uscourts.gov, whichguidelinesareincorporatedaspartofthisorder. Final PretrialConference fair usephase. will beusableforthispurposeaswell.ThisphaseonlyreachedifGooglelosesinthe on Google’sequitabledefensesandOracle’sremedies. Theentiretyofthetrialrecord limit, thenmore time may beallotted. time, onesiderunsoutoftime anditwouldbeamiscarriage ofjusticetoholdthatsideits benefit ofcounsel. the reasoningfor allmotions willissue,buttheessenceof therulingsisnowsetforth for the five hearings,includingthefinalpretrialconf occurred onallofthemotions, withtheexceptionofmotion regardingDr.Simonson, over Professor Kearl’sreportishereby PART Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page3of11 asfollows(andotherwise This partofthefinalpretrialordercoverselevenmotions Bothsidesshallpleasekeepinmind theimportance ofprovidingyoung 14. Itiscounsel’sresponsibilitytofigureouthowtheJuryPCworks andtoensureit 13. Expertsmay, butarenotrequiredto,observeanypartsofthetrial. 12. Thepartiesshallfollow theCourt’scurrent 11. Postverdict,some additionaltime willbeallowedforthejudge tohearevidence 10. Oracle’s seventhmotion , separatelyprovidedandavailableontheInternetat ORDER REMOTIONS D in limine ENIED D ENIED ). regardingDr.James Leonard’s reportreplyingto . Thefollowingmotions erence. Memorandum opinionsfurtheraddressing 3 IN LIMINE Guidelines forTrialand in limine in limine . Oralargument are G RANTED IN United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2007–08.) to thepositionthatGoogleneverimplemented OpenJDK“backatthetime,” meaning implemented OpenJDKinAndroid.(Oraclecan OpenJDK inAndroidNunlessanduntilOraclesuggeststothejurythatGoogleneveractually Additionally, Googlemay notrefer toorofferevidenceofthe2015implementation of OpenJDK indicatesSun’sorOracle’sconsenttoGoogle’sunlicenseduseofthe37APIs. OpenJDK demonstrates thepublishednatureofcopyrightedworks,orthatavailability non-infringing alternativeforpurposesofdisgorgement ofGoogle’sprofits. that OpenJDKwasaviablealternative.Google,however,may notofferOpenJDKasa had noalternativeotherthantoinfringe,Googlemay meet thisargument bytryingtoshow Since OraclearguesthatGooglewasdesperatetomake thewindowformobile market and rather thanGoogle’sallegedinfringement, causedanyallegedlostprofitsormarket harm. availability ofOpenJDKtothepublic(subjectcompliance withapplicablelicenseterms), derivatives) underthefourthfairusefactor.Similarly, Googlemay offerevidencethatthe claim oflostprofitsandOracle’sclaim ofany SSO inordertousetheJava programming language,withtheexceptionof threecoreAPI with theJavaplatform andthatGoogle hadnotechnicalneedtocopythedeclaringcode and of proofonGNUClasspathasdetailedintheorder onthismotion issuedonApril 28. on evidenceregardingGNUClasspathuntilithas receivedandreviewedGoogle’swrittenoffer is , Google’sdistributionofAndroidunderthe“ApacheLicense,” andGNU Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page4of11 .O 2. Google may not,moreover, offerargument ortestimony thatthepublicavailability of Google may offerevidenceofOpenJDKasanon-infringing alternativetomeet Oracle’s .O Dr. OwenAstrachanmust clearlystatethatAndroidis 3. Oracle’s motion O 1. D ENIED A PACHE RACLE RACLE RACLE astoevidenceregardingApache.TheCourt,however, reservesitsruling ’ ’ ’ H in limine S S S ARMONY MIL MIL MIL

N N N toexcludeallevidenceofApacheSoftwareFoundation, O O O . . . ,

AND 1 3 2

R R EGARDING EGARDING EGARDING GNU market harm (tothecopyrightedworksandtheir

C 4 avoidopeningthatdoorbylimiting thatpoint LASSPATH O D A R PACHE PEN .

O JDK. WEN . , not A STRACHAN compatible orinteroperable . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ambiguous andoverlapping terms “popularity,”“establisheduserbase,”or“market demand.” 2007–08. Simonson may not opine aboutthemeaning thatsurveyrespondentsattributedtothe not offeranyconclusion aboutwhetherthatgeneralpropositionisspecifically applicableto developers consider testimony relyingonthe“diversionratio”thathederivedfrom hisuseoftheKim model. order tomeet alimited market opportunity. OpenJDK tomeet Oracle’sargument thatGooglehadnoalternativetocopyingthe37APIsin realized absentinfringement. Leonardmay also non-infringing alternativestorebutOracle’scont purposes ofdisgorgement ortorebutOracle’scausalnexuscase.Leonardmay address the purposeofcalculatingGoogle’sprofitsattributabletoaccusedinfringement forthe packages that programming language(includingsixty-twodeclaringlineswithinthreecoreAPI packages thattheFederalCircuitacknowledgedmay betechnicallynecessaryforuseofthe of Androidonthe the headingsinhisreport.Astrachanmay notoffereconomic conclusionsregardingtheeffect developers usingtheJavaprogramming language.Astrachanmay notoffertestimony basedon clarify thathistestimony onlyrelatestocompatibility withtheconventionsandexpectationsof that Androidopenednewhorizons. “transformativeness” means “openingnewhorizons,” althoughhemay testifyastohisopinion Astrachan may notoffertestimony basedthereon. first sentenceofparagraph258,andthe270arestricken, Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page5of11 .O Dr. Itamar Simonson must make clearthathi 5. Leonard may notofferanytestimony basedontheKim model. Thisalsoexcludesany Dr. GregoryLeonardmay notoffer testimony regardingnon-infringingalternativesfor .O 4. Astrachan may notoffertestimony regardinghis“understanding”that all agree RACLE RACLE market in general were ’ ’ S S foranyaspectoftheJavaplatform. Specifically,paragraph256,the MIL MIL technicallynecessarytousethelanguage).Astrachanmust further whendetermining whichplatform todevelopfor,andhemay

N N O O . .

5 4

R R EGARDING EGARDING 5 addressthenon-infringingalternativeofusing entions regardingitsownprofitsitwouldhave D D s surveywasdirectedatthefactorsthat R R . .

I G TAMAR REGORY S IMONSON L EONARD . . United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 based onitspotentialtoextendintothoseproductcategories. argue fortheinferencethatAndroidconstitutedatransformative useofthecopyrightedworks TV, orBrillo.Googlealsomay notmake anyreferencetothoseimplementations. Normay it scenario inwhichGooglelaunchesnoform ofAndroidatall. the Kim model. Finally,Kearlmay notoffertestimony regardingthenon-infringingalternative limited inthesame manner asLeonard’s.Similarly, Kearlmay notoffertestimony regarding opine thatitisappropriate toawardtheentirevalueof“platform contribution”toOracle may notoffertestimony regardingwhetherfurther apportionment ispossible.Normay he about hisunderstandingofthelawdisgorgeme however, thisiswithoutprejudicetoaRule50motion directedatthatissue. proffer of$29billionfrom alladandsearchrevenuefrom Androiddevicesasamatter oflaw; jury ofacausalconnectionbetweentheaccused infringement andJames Malackowski’s initial would resultfrom widespreadcopyingakintoGoogle’s. those productcategories,histestimony regardingthosecategoriesmust belimited toharm that products. BecauseJaffehasofferednoopinionsregardingtheeffectofaccusedworksin inclusion ofpre-testingresults. Simonson must adjusthistestimony toreflectonlytheconclusionsinhissurvey Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page6of11 .G 8. G Oracle may notofferanyevidenceregardi 7. Professor James Kearl’stestimony regardingnon-infringingalternativesishereby Malackowski may notoffertestimony aboutthe“legal theoryofcommingling” oropine G Google hasnotpersuadedtheCourtthatOracle’s evidenceisinsufficienttopersuadea 9. Dr. Adam Jaffemay notoffertestimony basedontheeffect oftheabove-excludednew O 6. Google may notofferSimonson’s testimony initscase-in-chiefonfairuse. N O OOGLE OOGLE OOGLE RACLE .

7

R EGARDING ’ ’ ’ ’ S S S S MIL MIL MIL MIL

N N N N O O O O P . . . .

ROFESSOR

6 2 6 3 AND

R R R EGARDING EGARDING EGARDING G OOGLE J 6 AMES nt orapportionment. Further,Malackowski ng AndroidWear, AndroidAuto, N M D ’ S EW R R MIL K . .

A

EARL J P DAM AMES RODUCTS . J AFFE M ALACKOWSKI . . without . the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 evidence excludedunderRules402or403,thatside may excluding evidencesometimes opensthedoortoitsadmission anyway.Ifonesidegets fairly withintheswathofdenial.Beveryaware thatapartywhowinsanorder the witnessheardsomeone elseadmit theintent). under nocircumstance cananywitnesscharacterizesomeone else’s intentorwillfulness(unless what thelawisortheyunderstandtobewithoutpriorapprovalofjudge,and ¶¶ 215,217). apportioned Androidprofitsattributabletoth Android orotherwisestatethatthelostprofits the failureofProjectAcadiacanbemeasured inanywaybasedonGoogle’sprofitsfrom use theforecasttoprojectrevenuegrowthbeyond2011. profits calculationsaccordingly.Malackowskimay notopinethatitwouldbeappropriate to forecast onlythrough2011(whichapriororderalreadyapproved).Hemust adjusthistotallost (yes, thiswillmean hemust appeartwice). apportionment opinionsonly Oracle toofferMalackowski’sapportionment analys “gating items.” because theallegedlyinfringingAPIswere motion, tomodify theserulingsif furtherevidenceorcircumstances warrantsucha side presentedno(orlimited) evidenceonthatpoint. Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page7of11 IMPORTANT A denialofamotion Under nocircumstances shallanywitness,expertorotherwise,purporttotellthejury Malackowski may notofferanytestimony suggestingthatOracle’slostprofitsdueto Malackowski may offerconclusionsaboutlostprofits basedonthe2007–08Sun Additionally, duetotheburdenshiftinginvolvedindisgorgement, theCourtorders The foregoingrulingsare controlling.TheCourtreservestheauthority, on itsown IN LIMINE in limine after theyhaveofferedtheirownapportionment opinionsattrial RULINGSFORBOTHSIDES,ALLWITNESSES iswithoutprejudicetofurtherdiscreteobjections not e InfringedJavaCopyrights”(MalackowskiRpt. attributabletheretoare“bestmeasured bythe sine quanon 7 is andhiscritiqueofLeonard’sKearl’s not ofAndroidor,ashereferstothem, arguetothejurythatother in limine United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 it would “competes with Javain[themobile devices]market” and“GoogledesignedAndroidsothat end ofthecase.Mostthem concernGoogle’sconductandincludesuchthingsasAndroid appeals bedeemed acceptedforpurposesoftrialandreadasaninstructiontothejuryat modification withoutgoingthroughtheformality ofamotion forreconsideration. modification asthetrialdevelops.Counsel,however,may notasktheCourtforsucha or Androidfacts.Copyrightabilityturnedonl appellate courttoreverseascopyrightability)—excepttheextentnowstated. earlier findingsbythedistrictcourt(whetherornotrecitedasbackgroundreliedon make theirfactualpresentationstothejuryonfairusefactorswithoutbeingboundby Now, however,weareabouttopresentthefairuseissueajury.Bothsidesentitled by thedistrictcourtoncopyrightabilityissue,anissueforbenchratherthanajury. of “cherrypicking.”) some oftheadversefactoidsinsame opinion stated thatajuryshould weigh andbalancetheevidencefactorsrather thananappellate and enoughofthefactual recordtoshowthatissues was notafairuseasmatter oflaw.Thecourtappealsrecitedenoughthelawfairuse attempt onappealtosecure anappellaterulingthatGoogle’suseofthecodeatissueinAndroid accused work,Android.Thiswastheholdingon asecondissue,holding Google orAndroid.Oracle’strialbr necessary tothatholding,itcannotbyitselfbeusedinanywayestablish“facts”regarding Therefore, althoughtheappellatecopyrightability Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page8of11 EXTENT TOWHICHPRIORFACTUAL In itstrialbrief(Br.1),Oraclerequeststhatcertainfactsreferencedbythecourtof By definition,tobeginwith,thecopyrightabilityholdinginnowayturnedonGoogle The courtofappealsdrewheavily(butnotexclusively)onthefindingsfactmade By contrast,theotherholdingbycourtofappeals not becompatible withtheJavaplatform.” (Oraclerefuses,however,toadmit astrue ief iswronginstatingotherwise. y onthecopyrightedwork,notaccusedwork. 8 of thecourtappeals,creatinganappearance holdingdidfixasimmutable thosefacts FINDINGSARENOWIMMUTABLE offactremained forajury.Thatcourtthen did involveGoogleandthe rejecting Oracle’s United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 important example, Googleprevailedonappeal deliberate, clearandunambiguous admission, eventhoughoral. before theFederalCircuitatoral argument constituteda“judicial admission” becauseitwasa Oracle, judicialestoppeldoesnotapply. been allthemore reason forthesame holding(remand foratrialonfairuse).So,contraryto anyway. And,ifAndroidhadnotbeendeemed example, thecourtofappealswouldplainlyhaveruledthatajurytrialonfairusewasnecessary argument.” IfAndroidhadbeenpresumed commerc estoppel, whyitshouldbetreateddifferently the “notdisputing”partywinsanyway(onthati relied ontobenefitGoogle.Putdifferently,whensomething is“notdisputed”onappealand statement wasnotedintheappellatedecision,itnotrelieduponforholding,much less oral argument thatit“didnotdispute”Androidwascommercial innature.While that Google in anattempt tohaveitbothways. Here,noneoftheprofferedfactoidswasadvancedby grant (ordeny)relief,andthenafterthefavorableruling,tryingtowiggleoffrepresentation estoppel barsapartyfrom making arepresentationtocourt,inducing thecourt factoid insofarasthefairuseissueisconcerned. the “lawofcase”ruleor“rulemanda will onlyservetoreinforce theappellateremand for ajurytrial.Therefore, thereisnothingin Google succeededinshowingdisputedissuesof it ishardtoseehowany“fact”wasnecessaryorimmutably determined bythatholding. matter of law. court. Forthatreason,itrejectedOracle’sviewthefactualrecordforeclosedfairuseasa Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page9of11 Nevertheless, thisorder The same istruefor“judicialestoppel,”but Since thecourtofappealsrejectedOracle’sbidandfoundthatdisputedfactsremain, and reliedon bythecourtofappealsforpurposesitsfairuseruling.Totakeone HOLDS thattheessenceofconcessionmade byGoogle from aconcession“solelyforpurposesof te” thathaslockedGoogleintoanyparticular purelycommercial afterall,therewouldhave 9 ssue), itishardtosee,forpurposesofjudicial in spiteof,notbecauseof fact, andanyfurtherdisputedfactissuesnow for adifferentreason.Theruleofjudicial ial innature“forthesakeofargument,” for American TitleIns.Co.v. , Google’sanswerat to relyonit to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page10of11 Google simply cannot argueforfairusepurposes,totakeoneexample, thatthedeclaring code Feist Pub.,Inc.v.Rural Tel. ServiceCo. necessary torecitethestandard forcreativityandoriginalityneededtoobtain acopyright. and originalenoughtoqualifyforcopyrightprotection. Todefinethisforthejury,itwillbe header code,forthe37APIsaswelltheirstructure, sequenceandorganizationwerecreative of thosefacts,asrequestedinOracle’strialbrie any facts stand togiveexplanatorytestimony. would placetrialcounselinthepositionofarguingtheirowncredibilityorhavingtotake oral argument willbeexcludedunderRule403.Oneadditionalreasonisthatdoingotherwise show thattheonlypurposewascommercial. word “entirely”may possiblybeinsertedintotheinstruction.Oracle,ofcourse,canstilltryto line ofevidenceand/orargument unreasonablyatwarwiththecommercial concession,thenthe of thecolloquydeservesinfairnesstobewrittenstone.IfitdevelopsthatGooglepursuesa Since weareconcernedwithajudicialadmission, theCourthasdiscretiontodecidehowmuch the word“entirely”willbeleftoutasargumentative, hyperbolic,andundulyprejudicial. in thiscasethatGoogle’suseofthecopyrightedmaterial wasforacommercial use.”Fornow, court’s discretion).Still,wemust bemindful of whatwasadmitted. Hereistheexchange: Lacelaw Corp. To circlebacktotheappellateholdingregarding copyrightability,thisorder In lightofthisruling,andfortheforegoingreasons,recordingtranscript The foregoing demonstrates andthejurywillbeadmonished that“Itisnotindispute And, atthe2012trial,AttorneyVanNeststated: necessary , 861F.2d224,226(9thCir.1988)(extentofjudicialadmission, ifany,intrial better (Tr.1418). it toprovideaplatform onwhichotherGoogleproductscoulddo charitable mission. Theevidenceisprettyclearthat theycreated Nobody isclaiming thatGooglecreatedAndroidaspartofa I mean, again,thefactthatit’sacommercial useisnotindispute. Attorney VanNest:No. you don’tdisputethatwasentirelyacommercial purpose? Judge O’Malley:Butforpurposeandcharacter,though, tothatappellateholdingshouldbedeemed establishedforall purposes.One , 499U.S.340,345(1991). ContrarytoGoogle(Br.3), 10 f, isthatthedeclaringcode,alsoknownas RULES that United States District Court For the Northern District of California 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Case 3:10-cv-03561-WHADocument1760Filed04/29/16Page11of immutable, theguidingprinciplesbeingthatneither comes inandconsiderwhetherornotanyoftheitems shouldbedeclaredestablished and comes toolatetosortoutinthefinal pretrialorder.TheCourtwilllistento the evidenceasit language andthatthejurycouldtakethisintoaccountinevaluatingfairuse.Oracle’slatestset that atleastthreeofthe37APIsmight havebeennecessarytowriteintheJavaprogramming On thislatestset,Oracleseems tobeoverreachingsinceeventheappellatecourtrecognized needed tocopythedeclaringcodeandstructure,sequenceorganizationof37APIs. issues concerningtheextenttowhichAndroid,inorderuseJavaprogramming language, (in itstrialbrief)offactssoughttobedeemed establishedandraisedseveralmore, thistime on threshold, ifany,isamatter stillinplayforpurposesofthesecondfairusefactor. and SSOatissuewerenotcreative.Bycontrast,thedegreeofcreativityoverabovethat ae: Arl2,21. Dated: April29,2016. graciously agreedtomediate thisconference.Pleasecontactherchambers immediately. established factsinlinewiththeforegoingby any suchnecessaryfact.Counselshallmeet andconfersubmit anagreed-onstatement of copyrightability holdingoftheappellatecourt—normay eithersideoverstatethescopeof In itsrecentsupplemental brief(DocketNo.1726),Oraclewentbeyonditsoriginallist IT ISSOORDERED. NOON ON ON NOON 11 sidemay contradictafactnecessarytothe U W M NITED AY ILLIAM 13 . JudgeSallieKim has S TATES A LSUP D ISTRICT J UDGE