![]() ![]() At the charging conference, 23 counsel raised both new points and old ones (although they were permitted to rest on prior 24 critiques). Based thereon, a notice of the proposed final charge 22 circulated the night before the close of evidence (Dkt. During the trial, the judge sought briefs on several 21 issues in play as the evidence came in. Counsel (and the jury) were advised that the final instructions at the 19 end of the evidence would possibly be adjusted to reflect the way the case was tried (and, in 20 fact, some minor modifications did occur). Those critiques also led to modifications 17 and a final notice of the pre-instruction on fair use to be read to the jury before the start of the 18 evidence (Dkt. After reviewing the further briefs and 15 responses, the Court next circulated “penultimate instructions on fair use,” a third draft, and 16 invited a third round of comment (Dkt. 1688, 1716), asking counsel to 13 meet and confer to reach an agreed-on instruction in light of that proposal and to submit briefs 14 and responses regarding the areas of disagreement. In light of the 12 critiques, a second draft made substantial revisions (Dkt. 11 For the Northern District of California in the Federal Circuit’s opinion except for modifications urged by counsel and to account for 5 United States District Court 4 Counsel submitted their critiques a week later with replies the following week. After reviewing those comments, 10 the Court circulated a first proposed charge on fair use and requested critiques (Dkt. Months before trial, the 7 Court informed both sides that it expected to use the Federal Circuit’s opinion canvassing 8 fair use law as the starting point and requested briefing from the parties addressing what 9 modifications should be made (Dkt. ![]() The final jury charge culminated an exhaustive and iterative 6 process of proposals by the judge followed by critiques by counsel. The fair use instructions followed largely the review of fair use law as set forth how the case was actually tried. Since an appeal is promised, however, it may be of assistance to leave a few important observations. 1 2 3 Based on those instructions, the Rule 50 motions must be DENIED. For now, at the district court, the jury instructions 28 control. 1950), the time for those arguments was at or before the 27 charging conference or eventually on appeal. To the extent either side now quarrels with the law 26 as stated in the final charge (Dkt. Both sides are wrong in saying that all reasonable balancings of 25 the statutory factors favor their side only. ![]() Our trial presented a series of 24 credibility calls for our jury. 22 Under the law as stated in the final charge and on our trial record, our jury could 23 reasonably have found for either side on the fair use issue. For the same reasons as before, Oracle is wrong in 21 saying that no reasonable jury could find against it. Now, after an adverse verdict in the second trial, Oracle again asserts that it is entitled to 20 judgment as a matter of law on fair use. C 10-03561 WHA In this copyright case, the Federal Circuit remanded for a second jury trial on the issue 17 of fair use, rejecting the argument of Oracle America, Inc., that the first trial record entitled 18 it to judgment as a matter of law and that a remand on that issue would be “pointless” (Br. GOOGLE INC., 14 ORDER DENYING RULE 50 MOTIONS Defendant. 1988 1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 Plaintiff, v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |