Motorola's Court Document: Introduction In-Part

Motorola sued Apple Inc. ("Apple") for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Motorola Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 1:12-cv-20271), asserting that certain Apple products infringe, among others, Motorola's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,101,531 (the '531 patent) and 5,754,119 (the '119 patent). Specifically, Motorola accuses Apple's MobileMe and iCloud products, and iPhone, iPad, and other products that use MobileMe and iCloud, of infringing the '531 and '119 patents. Fact discovery in that case closes today, May 6, 2014. Oracle is based in California. Motorola served a subpoena for documents and a deposition on Oracle on November 20, 2013. The subpoena seeks documents and deposition testimony relating to the structure, function, and operation of Oracle products used in MobileMe and iCloud. The subpoena requested document production by December 2, 2013, and a deposition on December 6, 2013.

Oracle refused to produce documents responsive to the subpoena. Instead, Oracle claimed the requested technical documentation was publicly available on the Internet, and directed Motorola to various websites where Oracle represented to Motorola that it could obtain the requested discovery.

To minimize Oracle's burden, Motorola did not immediately move to compel Oracle to produce documents. Instead, Motorola reviewed the voluminous online documentation identified by Oracle and culled out a discrete set of documents relevant to its claims against Apple. All that remained was to have an Oracle witness authenticate these documents and testify as to their accuracy.

But when Motorola questioned Oracle's technical witness about the needles it had found in Oracle's haystack, Oracle's own witness testified that relevant portions of the publicly available information Oracle had identified were "incomplete," "incorrect," "obsolete," "inaccurate," and "just wrong." Oracle cannot rely on such documents to avoid producing the technical documentation Motorola requested.

Since the deposition, however, Oracle has refused to provide any additional technical documentation that would address the inaccuracies and deficiencies in the public documentation, and has refused to provide a witness for deposition concerning such documents. Incredibly, Oracle neither disputes that it directed Motorola to documents containing inaccuracies nor does it deny that it possesses accurate documents. Oracle simply does not want to give relevant and responsive documents to Motorola.

Motorola is entitled to relief for Oracle's gamesmanship. Oracle's behavior leaves Motorola with no choice but to seek relief from the Court. Motorola is entitled to accurate technical documentation to further support its infringement claims against Apple. Accordingly, Motorola requests that the Court compel Oracle to produce the requested documentation and to provide a witness for deposition regarding those documents.

Motorola Sought Discovery from Apple Regarding Its Use of the Relevant Oracle Products

Motorola Sought Discovery from Apple Regarding Its Use of the Relevant Oracle Products Motorola accuses Apple of infringing two Motorola patents, the '531 and '119 patents, that relate to mobile email. Motorola accuses Apple's MobileMe and iCloud products (among other Apple products) of infringing these patents. The accused functionalities in Apple's MobileMe and iCloud products use certain Oracle products. Accordingly, Motorola sought discovery from Apple concerning the Oracle products used by Apple, including source code for the relevant Oracle products. Apple, however, represented that it did not have access to Oracle's source code.

It is irrelevant that Oracle directed Motorola to documents—Motorola was entitled to accurate technical documentation. It is irrelevant that Oracle provided a deponent—Motorola was entitled to have accurate technical documents to pressure-test Oracle's witness at deposition. It is irrelevant that Motorola's claim is against Apple—Motorola's subpoena seeks information relevant to the claims and defenses in this action and reasonably calculated to the lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Indeed, it is undisputed that the accused Apple instrumentalities use Oracle's infrastructure and that Motorola is entitled to fully understand Apple's infringing processes.

On May 6, 2014 Motorola requested that the Court grant Motorola's Motion to Compel Oracle to Produce Documents and a Deposition.

This aspect of the patent infringement case presented in today's report was filed in the California Northern District Court, San Francisco Office. The Presiding Judge in this case is noted as being Judge William Alsup.

Side Note: Google acquired Motorola in 2011 but sold it to Lenovo in early 2014. But supposedly it kept certain Motorola teams this year, one of them being led by Regina Dugan, the former DARPA head. Google also retained most patents. So the question becomes, is it Google or Lenovo that is now behind and fueling this ongoing lawsuit.

Why can't it be Motorola? Well, in business, the term is novation. A classic example of novation is where Company A enters a contract with Company B and a novation is included to ensure that if Company B sells, merges or transfers the core of their business to another company, the new company assumes the obligations and liabilities that Company B has with Company A under the contract.

 Patently Apple presents only a brief summary of certain legal cases/ lawsuits which are part of the public record for journalistic news purposes. Readers are cautioned that Patently Apple does not offer an opinion on the merit of the case and strictly presents the allegations made in said legal cases / lawsuits. A lawyer should be consulted for any further details or analysis. About Comments: Patently Apple reserves the right to post, dismiss or edit comments. On most legal cases, comments will be closed. See our Legal Archives for other patent infringement cases.