Last year, the judge offered Oracle a choice: Accept a judgment of $272 million in damages, reduced from $1.3 billion awarded at trial, or seek a new trial. Oracle says in court filings that it wants a new trial.

The key passage of the two-page court filing reads as follows (the word “remittitur” refers to the judge’s previous order reducing the award):

Oracle has no choice but to elect a new trial, as accepting the remittitur would force Oracle to risk waiving its right to appeal the Court’s decision on the motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial. Oracle’s objective is to obtain clarification of the law and, if it is right about what the law is and what the evidence supports in this case, to vindicate the verdict of the jury and Oracle’s intellectual property rights as a copyright owner. Accepting the remittitur would be contrary to this objective.

And that means that the whole thing starts over again.

Calling the $1.3 billion award “grossly excessive,” U.S. District Court Judge Phyllis Hamilton in February granted an SAP request to throw out the award. Hamilton said that Oracle never proved that it lost enough business to justify so large a judgment.

Oracle had won the award in November, after accusing SAP’s now-shuttered TomorrowNow unit of copying its software without paying appropriate licensing fees. It had been the largest judgment ever in a copyright infringement case.

At trial, Oracle accused SAP’s now-shuttered TomorrowNow business unit of illegally downloading Oracle software and then making several thousand copies of it, in order to avoid paying the relevant license fees that are Oracle’s financial bread and butter. Oracle ultimately won the claim, but then the fight turned to damages.

Lawyers for Oracle had argued that the company’s damages should be tied to the value of a hypothetical license that TomorrowNow would have had to pay for the software, had it been properly licensed. For its part, SAP had argued that, as competitors, damages should have been calculated based on profits lost by Oracle and gained by SAP as a result of the infringement, and as such is in a much lower range than what Oracle argued for.

The case has caused a lot of personal enmity between Oracle and SAP, as well as with Hewlett-Packard, especially during the 11-month period when former SAP co-CEO Léo Apotheker was CEO of HP. Apotheker’s first days on the job at HP were marred by his apparent absence from HP headquarters, in what couldn’t help but look like an attempt to avoid being served with a subpoena. Maybe Oracle will try again.

First, a German court handed the South Korean company a setback, rejecting one of the seven patent infringement claims it had brought against Apple. In the court’s view, Samsung’s claim that Apple violates this particular patent, which relates to 3G/UMTS wireless standard, isn’t valid, though the presiding judge hasn’t yet explained why that’s the case.

Far more interesting is this second bit of news coming out of the German courts today. Evidently, Apple has decided to assert its slide-to-unlock patent against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus. This is the first time Apple has fingered the Nexus as an infringing device, and its decision to do so appears to be a significant escalation of the company’s campaign against Android. Not only is the Galaxy Nexus one of Samsung’s hero smartphones, it’s also Google’s Android 4.0 reference device.

In fact, it’s the only smartphone shipping with Android 4.0 right now. In other words, it’s the latest “pure Google” phone. Which is noteworthy.

“Judging by the first three weeks of 2012, Apple’s intellectual property assertions against Android continue to escalate,” patent analyst Florian Mueller told AllThingsD. “Samsung appears to be no less determined to fight. Apple’s supplemental infringement contentions targeting the Android 4.0 lead device are an unequivocal signal to Google that Apple doesn’t shy away from a frontal assault.”

The ITC had been scheduled to issue its decision on the matter tomorrow, but on Monday said it would delay it until December 14. So it will be another nine days before we see a final verdict in the case.

If the ITC rules in Apple’s favor and determines that HTC’s Android smartphones violate the four patents at issue on the case, it could ban their importation. And that would be a nasty setback for HTC, which might then miss out on the lucrative holiday shopping season.

A victory for HTC, on the other hand, could set the stage for a settlement with Apple, which was recently vindicated in another ITC case in which it was accused of violating the patents of HTC’s S3 Graphics unit.

The Singapore-based media group, which publishes 18 newspapers here, seeks unspecified damages from Yahoo Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd. for the alleged copyright infringements, as well as a legal injunction to prevent further infringements, according to a writ filed last week to the city-state’s High Court.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The patent amassing firm, which was started by former Microsoft executive Nathan Myhrvold, said it has filed suit in Delaware federal court.

“Intellectual Ventures has successfully signed licensing agreements with many of the top handset manufacturers in the world, and has been in discussions with Motorola Mobility for some time,” Chief Litigation Counsel Melissa Finocchio said in a statement. “Unfortunately, we have been unable to reach agreement on a license.”

Finocchio said the company’s preference is to negotiate deals rather than head to court, but Thursday’s move shows its willingness to do the latter.

“We have a responsibility to our current customers and our investors to defend our intellectual property rights against companies such as Motorola Mobility who use them without a license,” Finocchio said. “Our goal continues to be to provide companies with access to our portfolio through licensing and sales, but we will not tolerate ongoing infringement of our patents to the detriment of our current customers and our business.”

Of course, Intellectual Ventures is far from alone in filing mobile patent lawsuits. Oracle is suing Google, Apple is suing HTC and Samsung (and vice versa), Microsoft is suing Motorola and Barnes & Noble, to name just a few of the court actions under way.

Unlike those businesses, though, Intellectual Ventures doesn’t make products of its own, making it tough to countersue them for patent infringement. For more on the company, check out our coverage from 2008, when Myhrvold appeared at D6.

IV vs. Motorola

Oracle, Microsoft and Apple have all sued over Android, albeit in different ways. Oracle has sued Google directly, while Microsoft and Apple have sued particular hardware makers.

Microsoft and Apple both declined to comment ahead of any product introduction by Amazon. However, Microsoft’s deal with Samsung — and its related comments — reiterate the company’s position that it believes it is owed royalty revenue on each Android device sold.

Also, Microsoft and Amazon do have a patent deal covering the existing Kindle line and Amazon’s Linux-based servers.

The devil, of course, is in the details of just how Amazon does and doesn’t use Android. And there is always the question of what deals might quietly be in place, and which relevant patents Amazon might hold that it can claim are being infringed by any potential litigant.

In one important case, the International Trade Commission on Monday has scheduled a hearing to review Microsoft Corp.’s patent-infringement charges against Motorola Inc., which target smartphones running Google’s Android operating system. Google last week agreed to pay $12.5 billion for the mobile-phone business now called Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., largely to acquire patents that are seen as legal weapons against Microsoft, Apple Inc. and other Android rivals.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The New York company, which pays a network of scientists and technology experts to determine if a patented invention is truly novel, typically helps big companies after they are sued by patent holders. Now, it is launching a service that aims to invalidate “poor quality” patents before they are asserted in courts.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

After vowing to respond aggressively to Apple’s legal assault, Samsung reportedly shot back Thursday with multiple suits of its own, alleging the Cupertino, Calif.-based company infringes on Samsung technology.

According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, Samsung has filed suits against Apple in Japan, Korea and Germany. The move follows a suit by Apple last week accusing that Samsung’s phones and tablets infringe on Apple patents and trademarks.

Representatives of Apple and Samsung were not immediately available for comment.

The battle between Samsung and Apple is the latest in a series of disputes dividing the cellphone industry. Apple is also engaged in lawsuits with Nokia and HTC, while Microsoft and Motorola have ongoing disputes, as do Google and Oracle, among others.

Last Friday, Apple sued Samsung in U.S. federal court, alleging trademark and patent infringement as well as other claims. In the suit, Apple is seeking an injunction against Samsung as well as unspecified monetary damages. Apple’s lawsuit alleges everything from Samsung’s hardware and packaging to the icons on its screens are a duplication of Apple’s technology.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized on Monday. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Samsung, meanwhile, said earlier this week that it would react aggressively to Apple’s action.

“Samsung’s development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success,” the company said in a statement to Mobilized. “Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property.

The issue is complicated by the fact that Samsung is not only a rival in the phone and tablet markets, but also a key supplier to Apple. According to The Wall Street Journal, Apple was Samsung’s second biggest customer last year, after Sony. And given Apple’s phenomenal growth of late, it’s reasonable to think Apple may have displaced Sony to become Samsung’s single biggest customer.

The suit, filed on Friday in U.S. District Court in Northern California, alleges patent and trademark infringement, as well as unfair competition. Apple is seeking injunctions, actual damages and punitive damages, as well as a finding that the alleged infringement was willful.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” an Apple representative told Mobilized. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong, and we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

Samsung said it would fight Apple’s legal action in the courts.

“Samsung’s development of core technologies and strengthening our intellectual property portfolio are keys to our continued success,” the company said in a statement. “Samsung will respond actively to this legal action taken against us through appropriate legal measures to protect our intellectual property.”

The smartphone industry is filled with patent actions, including an ongoing battle between Apple and Nokia, suits between Microsoft and Motorola, as well as a suit by Oracle against Google, to name but a few. This one is particularly interesting because Samsung is a prominent supplier for a number of Apple products.

Apple’s lengthy court filing, seen by Mobilized, is filled with what Apple claims are examples of the copy-catting, ranging from core technology to screen icons to hardware shape. In particular, Apple cites patents issued in 2009 and 2010 that cover the physical design of the iPhone along with various trademarks for its app icons.

In addition to the patent and trademark claims, Apple also alleges infringement of the “trade dress” of the iPhone and iPad, a legal term meaning they sure look a whole lot alike. Apple charges that everything from the icons on the Galaxy screen to the way the phone is packaged infringe on Apple’s designs.

“Samsung’s Galaxy Tab computer tablet also slavishly copies a combination of several elements of the Apple Product Configuration Trade Dress,” Apple says in its suit, noting that Samsung’s tablet, like Apple’s, uses a similar rectangular design with rounded corners, similar black border and array of icons.

Even as Apple is filing its latest claims, the company suffered a setback in earlier cases it has pending against HTC and Nokia with the U.S. International Trade Commission. According to Bloomberg, ITC staff has recommended siding against Apple in those cases, which also involve phone patents.

Apple’s suit against Samsung not only contains lots of harsh words, but also has lots of pretty pictures, including some that show side-by-side shots of Samsung’s products stacked up against Apple’s patent diagrams and against Apple’s products themselves.

In one head-to-head comparison, Apple shows the iPhone 3GS next to the original Galaxy i9000 model sold in South Korea last year.

Updated 3:10 p.m. with Samsung comment.

Late last month, BoomTown posted about a huge venture funding effort by the high-profile and even more highly designed social media reading app for the Apple iPad, Flipboard.

Today, its co-founder and CEO Mike McCue confirmed the $50 million round at an eye-popping $200 million valuation, in a wide-ranging interview at the start-up’s Palo Alto, Calif., HQ.

“We’re obviously thrilled, because we think it confirms our focus that people want a beautifully designed way to interact with content and to share it,” he said. “And there is a lot more to come–on a scale of one to 10, we’re just at a two or three.”

The bulk of the new second round of funding–Flipboard had previously raised $10.5 million–came from New York-based Insight Venture Partners.

Insight’s Jerry Murdock said in an interview that he was excited about the idea of “social endorsement” that Flipboard was pioneering.

“We back great entrepreneurs and Flipboard is that and also in an obviously unique position to solve a problem of media consumption in the digital age,” he said. “The sky is the limit. Or more precisely it is the best environment to consume curated real-time content for Twitter and Facebook, because of the user experience and social endorsement integration with the content.”

Insight is also an investor in Twitter.

Also stepping up in the new Flipboard round is Comcast’s venture arm, as well as previous investors, including Kleiner Perkins, Index Ventures and a spate of well known angels, such as Twitter co-founder and product guru Jack Dorsey, Facebook co-founder and Asana dude Dustin Moskovitz, the ubiquitous Ron Conway, actor Ashton Kutcher and the investment company of former News Corp. exec Peter Chernin.

“From a Comcast perspective, we’re intrigued with Mike and what he’s doing with content aggregation,” said Amy Banse, Comcast Interactive Capital’s new head. “We think we can learn from him and he from us.”

Co-founded by longtime entrepreneur McCue (Netscape, Tellme) and former Apple iPhone engineer Evan Doll in January, Flipboard launched to much attention in July.

The elegant Flipboard–which McCue recently told me in an onstage interview at the South by Southwest conference in Austin had zero revenues thus far–has changed the game on the consumption of social media.

Its innovative social magazine concept is attempting to make the social networking universe more accessible, consumable and, perhaps most importantly, visually arresting via its rich app.

Essentially, Flipboard pulls information from media RSS feeds and sites such as Twitter and Facebook data streams and then reassembles it in an easy-to-navigate, personalized format in a mobile tablet touchscreen environment.

In its current offering, there are pull-quotes, photos, videos, status updates and even the first paragraphs of linked-out content. There is also the ability to comment and share, as if one were on a social networking or microblogging site.

McCue said the new giant pile of cash will be used to increase its 32-person staff to about 50, international expansion, small acquisitions and more product development on more platforms.

The next in the arena will be the iPhone version of Flipboard, said McCue, followed by one for the Google Android mobile operating system eventually.

Left unsaid, of course, was the need for funding to fight the likelihood of increased competition in the hot space for delivering both professional and social content to consumers on a wide range of devices.

Rivals are varied, such as Silicon Valley’s most adorable news reader start-up Pulse and also Zite, a news reader which was recently sued for copyright infringement by a group of major publishers.

There are bigger potential players, such as Google, which is trying to find various ways to move into the social space.

In fact, said several sources, Google and others have made acquisition approaches to Flipboard, which has instead opted for raising more funding and staying independent for now.

McCue declined to talk about that, but did note that he is not surprised by publisher interest, especially of the worried and wary kind, in the arena.

“Anyone not respectful of others’ content is going to get in that kind of trouble,” he said, noting Flipboard has struck deals with 17 big publishers so far, including this morning’s announcement about a partnership with Oprah Winfrey’s and Discovery’s OWN cable network. “There is not one half to this equation.”

Right now, the Flipboard app is free and the business plan is advertising and some possible subscription scenarios.

McCue said advertising will be the key to Flipboard’s business plan in the future, although it’s not clear if the company will ever sell advertising itself.

Rather, it will partner with publishers seeking better distribution in the explosive tablet and smartphone market, where Flipboard has been gaining traction quickly.

But until that is sorted out, there is now $50 million more in the Flipboard kitty to figure it all out.

“With this funding, we can grow at the right pace and have a lot of flexibility to get the product right,” said McCue. “And, that’s the most important thing.”

Aghast at the U.S. International Trade Commission’s ruling on its first complaint against Apple, Nokia has filed a second, accusing Apple of infringing its patents “in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, tablets, and computers.”

At issue in the complaint are seven patents that Nokia argues “are now being used by Apple to create key features in its products in the areas of multi-tasking operating systems, data synchronization, positioning, call quality and the use of Bluetooth accessories.” Taken together with the IP cited in Nokia’s previous ITC complaint and related cases in the U.S., U.K., Germany and The Netherlands, the company has nearly four dozen patents in play in its suit against Apple.

“Our latest ITC filing means we now have 46 Nokia patents in suit against Apple, many filed more than 10 years before Apple made its first iPhone,” Paul Melin, Nokia’s VP of intellectual property said in a statement. “Nokia is a leading innovator in technologies needed to build great mobile products and Apple must stop building its products using Nokia’s proprietary innovation.”

Almost sounds like Nokia’s saying it invented the iPhone, doesn’t it? Which is ironic, considering the company is on the record professing its fondness for Apple’s handset.

Asked once about the striking similarities between a touchscreen device it was designing and the iPhone, Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s head of multimedia devices at the time, replied, “If there is something good in the world then we copy with pride.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Nokia Sues Apple
• Did Nokia Sue Apple Before Apple Could Sue Nokia?
• Nokia’s New Focus Is Mobile Services? Sure It’s Not Lawsuits Against Apple?
• Apple Countersues Nokia for Copying iPhone (Plus Disputed Patents and Full Text of Counterclaim)
• ITC Investigating Nokia Over Apple Patent Complaints and Vice Versa
• Nokia Accuses Apple of “Legal Alchemy.” Stops Short of “Chymistry” and “Heresy.”
• Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain
• Apple Vs. Nokia: The Battle of Britain II
• ITC: Apple Did Not Infringe Nokia Patents

However, Microsoft’s statement showed its target is the broader Android operating system.

“The Android platform infringes a number of Microsoft’s patents, and companies manufacturing and shipping Android devices must respect our intellectual property rights,” Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement, “To facilitate that we have established an industry-wide patent licensing program for Android device manufacturers.”

Gutierrez said that others, such as HTC, have agreed to license Microsoft patents for use with Android-based products and added that Microsoft “tried for over a year to reach licensing agreements with Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec.”

A Barnes & Noble spokeswoman declined comment, citing a policy against speaking about litigation matters.

Microsoft has also taken to the courts over Android as well, filing patent suits against Motorola for that company’s use of the Google-developed open source operating system.

Redmond has said that, while it hopes Windows Phone will eventually rival Android in the market, it is seeking revenue for its mobile patents from those making Android-based devices.

“Their refusals to take licenses leave us no choice but to bring legal action to defend our innovations and fulfill our responsibility to our customers, partners, and shareholders to safeguard the billions of dollars we invest each year to bring great software products and services to market,” Gutierrez added.

In fact, three of them are tangled in a lawsuit, alleging patent infringement.

Seattle-based Tippr has filed suit against two of its closest rivals, BuyWithMe and DealOn.

All three pale in comparison to the deal-swagger of Groupon and LivingSocial. While they may have close to a hundred employees and meddle in a dozen or so U.S. markets, in comparison, both LivingSocial and Groupon have thousands of employees who curate deals in hundreds of markets on an international basis.

In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court of Washington Tippr’s parent company is claiming that the two are infringing on patents related to the use of an online buying group system for aggregating demand. Kashless is requesting an award equal to an undisclosed amount of damages caused by such infringement.

This lawsuit could be seen coming from a mile away.

In December, Tippr announced a strategy around what it considers a very strong patent portfolio.

Tippr’s CEO Martin Tobias explained to us that in late 2009, it acquired the patent portfolio of defunct Mercata, a Paul Allen-backed group-buying venture from Web 1.0. Tobias traded stock in Kashless for the patents, which included more than half a dozen patents covering areas like price optimization, demand curve modeling and buyer-seller interaction models.

His idea is to license the right to use those patents to anyone, ranging from its white-label partners to its competitors. The idea even has a name: the patent licensing program for group-buying.

Tippr offers constant reminders that it owns these patents, listing them on the bottom of every page on its Web site. It also writes in its description that: “You can be assured that Tippr is using the most advanced proprietary technology to deliver you the best deals on anything you buy with us.”

This is not the first patent fight in the daily deals space. In November, Groupon counter-sued a company called MobGob in Chicago, referencing patents that predate the founding of the company.

Earlier this month, Tippr also filed for a preliminary injunction against BuyWithMe for “using or disclosing Kashless’s confidential information,” reports TechFlash. The suit claims a former Kashless employee, Andrew DeLorenzo, violated an agreement by disclosing financial information about Tippr to BuyWithMe founder Andrew Moss. (BuyWithMe has since hired Jim Crowley as CEO.)

Tobias said in a statement sent to us: “Tippr, the industry’s first patented, white-label group buying platform, owns the deepest portfolio of issued patents in the group buying space. Its patents cover many of the most fundamental aspects of group buying systems and methods. The company cannot comment on the pending litigation regarding patent infringement by the defendants, but Tippr continues to be committed to true innovation as reflected in its considerable patent portfolio.”

Another wrinkle in the plot is that DealOn was acquired by ReachLocal for $10 million last week.

SAP apparently has other plans. Having won in December a small victory over the amount of interest it will have to pay, today SAP said it plans to argue that it shouldn’t have to pay quite as much to Oracle.

In a statement, it called the judge’s order a “procedural matter,” and said it plans to make post-trial motions challenging the amount the jury awarded. If not successful, it may appeal, the company said. Its full statement is below.

“Today the Court entered judgment in the Oracle v. SAP/TomorrowNow litigation, which is a procedural matter that occurs after a jury verdict. As stated before, we have accepted liability for the actions of TomorrowNow and have been willing to fairly compensate Oracle, but we believe that the amount awarded by the jury is disproportionate and wrong. Once the judgment is entered, SAP is permitted to challenge the jury’s award by way of “post-trial motions,” which are made to the trial judge. SAP will file these motions in the coming weeks asking the Court to reduce the amount of damages awarded or to order a new trial. We look forward to the Court’s resolution of the issues we will raise in our post-trial motions. Depending on the outcome of the post-trial motion process, SAP may also consider an appeal.”

Oracle, on the other hand, was happy to take another victory lap. “We are very pleased that the court’s final judgment for $1.3 billion, plus the court-awarded interest and the $120 million SAP paid during trial to settle additional charges, confirms the jury’s verdict against SAP for its massive intentional copyright infringement,” Oracle said in an emailed statement.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle to SAP: You Owe Us Another $212 Million
• Oracle-SAP Verdict: SAP Owes Oracle $1.3 Billion
• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Late Tuesday a Federal judge ordered SAP to pay interest on the gargantuan sum Oracle won against it in a November copyright infringement trial. But it also agreed to calculate that interest using a different method from the one employed by Oracle. And in doing so it lopped about $195 million dollars off the prejudgment interest Oracle had originally sought.

So good news or, rather, significantly better bad news. Certainly, SAP was pleased to learn it’s not obligated to pile quite as much prejudgment interest atop Oracle’s award as it might have been.

“While we believe that Oracle should only be awarded damages, we appreciate that the Court agreed with SAP on the proper calculation of interest in this case which dramatically lowered the amount,” an SAP spokesman told me. “The interest the Court ordered, based on the statutorily-set interest rate of .3 percent and the accrual period of September 29, 2006 through December 23, 2010, is approximately $16.5 million, rather than the over 200 million Oracle was seeking.”

Of course, that doesn’t make Oracle’s damages award any less massive. But then SAP hopes to whittle that down as well. As the company said in its filing last week: “Defendants plan to challenge that verdict on a variety of grounds in their post-judgment motions, including that it is excessive and overcompensates Oracle.”

Oracle declined comment.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle to SAP: You Owe Us Another $212 Million
• Oracle-SAP Verdict: SAP Owes Oracle $1.3 Billion
• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

Allen sued Google, Apple, AOL, eBay, Facebook, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples and Yahoo in August, but the case was dismissed earlier this month, with Tuesday set as the deadline for Interval to file an amended complaint. As noted by open source industry blogger Florian Mueller, the new claims include allegations that Android infringes on Interval patents, adding to a growing list of legal claims being leveled in the mobile arena.

The closely held firm was co-founded by former Microsoft Corp. chief technology officer Nathan Myhrvold, who had avoided litigation for years but never ruled it out.

Intellectual Venture’s lawsuits focus on patents in the fields of computer security and semiconductor technology. One suit names Symantec Corp., McAfee Inc., Trend Micro Inc. and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The lawsuit is bad timing for the small start-up, which was quickly gaining momentum. After its debut in November, it took just two weeks to generate two million downloads across BlackBerry, Android and iPhone. The free app allows users to send messages without paying text messaging fees and works across multiple platforms, unlike RIM’s own popular BlackBerry Messenger service, which is restricted to its own platform.

Worse yet, we heard Kik’s overnight success earlier this month drew the attention of several VCs, who were lining up with their checkbooks open and ready. It’s not clear if Kik was able to close that round before the lawsuit was filed on Tuesday in Canada’s Federal Court, but you can be sure that VCs will be über-vigorous in evaluating the company’s technology and any potential patents if a fight against RIM is in the works. To be sure, it will need the cash for legal fees alone.

The lawsuit was first spotted by David Lam, a lawyer in Ontario, Canada, who reported the electronic filing on his blog. Further details about RIM’s claims were unavailable, and we’ve reached out to both RIM and Kik for comment. UPDATE: In a blog post, Kik confirmed that it received the lawsuit yesterday. The company’s founder, Ted Livington, who worked at RIM as a student, writes: “I’m not afraid. I’m not surprised. But I am disappointed.”

This in addition to the $120 million in attorneys’ fees SAP agreed to pay when the trial first began.

SAP, which believed that the damages amounted to about $28 million, had argued that Oracle was looking for an undeserved bonanza out of the jury, while Oracle contended the market value of licensing the IP was between $1.65 billion and $3 billion.

As Nucleus Research’s Rebecca Wettemann notes, the damage award is “a drop in the bucket” to Oracle, but a stern warning to the industry. Looking forward, she said, “You have to bet Oracle will be reminding customers they’re choosing between thought leaders and intellectual property thieves–and what that indicates more broadly about how SAP does business.”

In a statement issued after the verdict , SAP was contrite:

“We are, of course, disappointed by this verdict and will pursue all available options, including post-trial motions and appeal if necessary. This will unfortunately be a prolonged process and we continue to hope that the matter can be resolved appropriately without more years of litigation. The mark of a leading company is the way it handles its mistakes. As stated in court, we regret the actions of TN, we have accepted liability, and have been willing to fairly compensate Oracle. Throughout this matter, our customers, employees and partners have stood by us and, for that, we are grateful. Our focus now is looking forward, helping our customers be best run businesses, and extending our legacy of industry leadership well into the future. We thank the jury for its diligent service through this lengthy trial and the Court for its supervision of this complex case.”

On behalf of Oracle, President Safra Catz sounded as clinical as Jack Webb wrapping up an episode of “Dragnet.” “For more than three years, SAP stole thousands of copies of Oracle software and then resold that software and related services to Oracle’s own customers,” she said in a statement. “Right before the trial began, SAP admitted its guilt and liability; then the trial made it clear that SAP’s most senior executives were aware of the illegal activity from the very beginning. As a result, a United States Federal Court has ordered SAP to pay Oracle $1.3 billion. This is the largest amount ever awarded for software piracy.”

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

[Image credit: Pre-Ellison Samurai image by Artem Mirolevioch]

“I think it would have been helpful and important for the jury to hear from him. On the other hand, it wasn’t essential. We were able to put our case in anyway.”

– Oracle attorney David Boies changes his tune on the importance of HP CEO Léo Apotheker’s testimony in the company’s copyright infringement lawsuit against SAP

ORACLE on SAP
“Oracle brought suit to stop the illegal conduct and hold SAP fully accountable for its actions. Four years ago we discovered massive and indiscriminate downloading of software and support materials from an Oracle support Web site.

SAP immediately and, for three and a half years, repeatedly denied wrongdoing and responsibility. But on the eve of trial SAP began a series of admissions to claims of copyright infringement, violations of state and federal computer fraud laws, unfair competition, breach of contract, interference and other claims that settled liability before the trial began. Trial evidence and testimony showed that the SAP Executive Board was fully aware of the illegal activity and still acquired TomorrowNow to unlawfully take Oracle support revenues and move Oracle customers to SAP products and to disrupt and discredit Oracle. SAP not only failed to take action to stop the behavior, but it expanded it for 18 months after Oracle filed suit.

The pre-trial admissions and testimony over the last few weeks have exposed SAP’s scheme to capitalize on the use of stolen intellectual property. While Oracle seeks damages to fairly compensate it for this massive theft, it is perhaps more important to expose the illegal conduct by a dominant player in the industry and to send a message that intellectual property rights must be respected.”

SAP on ORACLE
The time for testimony and sidewalk claims by plaintiff’s counsel are over. The actual testimony took place in court.

We are very proud of the SAP legal team and our counsel Jones Day for their work in presenting our defense. We believe we have presented a solid case for the reasonable and appropriate compensation for damages by the limited actions of TomorrowNow. This case is not about who knew what, did what or supervised what…those issues were handled by stipulations prior to trial. This case is only about the damages, and we trust now in the jury to examine the evidence and testimony and reach a fair and just conclusion.

SAP has a long history as a trusted partner and we believe our legacy will extend beyond this matter. Throughout this matter over these three years, our customers and partners have stood by us and for that we are grateful. The mark of a successful leading company is the way it handles it’s mistakes. As indicated in court, we regret the mistakes of TN, we apologize to Oracle, and we have sought to address these mistakes by compensating Oracle for the damages. All along, we have done the responsible thing by admitting to the mistakes, taking care of the customers, winding down the TN business, and accepting liability. We are confident we can put this matter behind us and continue our leadership of this industry.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Oracle-SAP: Closing Statements Followed by Closing Insults
• Oracle-SAP Case Closes With $1.67 Billion Difference of Opinion
• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO

“The defendants have admitted that their infringement was massive and prolonged,” Boies said in his closing statement. “It is clear that SAP’s board and top executives expected it would be worth billions of dollars.” And just because SAP wasn’t able to generate that kind of value from Oracle’s pilfered IP, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t pay full fare for its infringement. “They took it and they have to pay for it regardless of whether they did well or didn’t do well using it.”

But SAP would rather not pay what it describes as a poorly caluclated “bonanza” award. “This case comes down to what is the best measure of compensation,” SAP attorney Robert Mittelstaedt argued. “Oracle’s [proposed damages] are based on guesswork,” while SAP’s are “based on reality.”

And evidently factoring “reality” into the equation cuts a hell of a lot of fat off the damages award at issue here. Because Mittelstaedt says SAP feels it owes Oracle just $28 million, which is, remarkably, even less than the $40.6 million its high-paid damages expert suggested.

PREVIOUSLY:

• LOLCatz: Safra on The Stand Again in Oracle-SAP Trial
• Plattner and White No-Shows at Oracle-SAP Trial
• Damages Expert to SAP: You Owe Me $14 Million and Oracle Four Times That
• Oracle, SAP and the Apotheker Sideshow
• Better Late: SAP Co-CEO Apologizes for Oracle IP Theft
• SAP Co-CEO Expected to Testify in Oracle Trial Today
• HP to Oracle: Leave Léo Alone
• Oracle Still Hoping to Snag HP’s Apotheker for SAP Trial
• HP CEO to Oracle: Here’s Looking at You, Kid–Suntory Time!
• Ellison to Self: Damn, Damn. I Knew I Should Have Said $4.5 Billion
• SAP Attorney: Board Knew TomorrowNow Was Infringing at Time of Acquisition
• Oracle Co-President on SAP’s Damages Offer: “It’s Crazy”
• Oracle Enlists Process Servers, Not PIs, to Find HP CEO
• Oracle-SAP Trial: Ellison Swaps Katana for Poison Darts
• Objection: Mr. Ellison Is Referring to the Defendant as “Choleric of Temper” Again
• Oracle Lands Early Shots in SAP Trial
• Your Honor, We Object to Mr. Ellison’s Repeated Use of the Term “Slimy Weasels”
• Oracle to HP CEO: Chicken!
• Oracle Vs. SAP: We Got a Right to Pick a Little Fight–Bonanza!
• SAP’s Tab in Oracle Case: $120 Million and Counting
• Gag Order Denied in Oracle, SAP Trial
• Ellison Taunts HP CEO a Second Time
• SAP to Ellison: Save the Drama for Your Mama
• Ellison to HP CEO: “Warrior, Come Out to Plaaeeay!
• SAP: Please Gag Oracle
• HP Scandal Sucks in New York Times Columnist Over Conflict of Interest
• Welch to HP Board: You Don’t Know Jack!
• Insiders Criticize Ellison For HP CEO Slam
• Was Apotheker HP’s First Choice of CEO?
• HP Names Ex-SAP Chief Apotheker as CEO