Oracle vs. Google: Judge Reduces Oracle's Patent Infringement Claims to 129 of 132 Against Google

Earlier last week, the judge in the Oracle v. Google case asked both companies to suggest a revised number of claims from the original figure of 132 patent infringement claims filed by Oracle. So they have each filed their suggested cuts. Also the judge has issued a *tentative* claims construction order, asking for reaction from […]

Earlier last week, the judge in the Oracle v. Google case asked both companies to suggest a revised number of claims from the original figure of 132 patent infringement claims filed by Oracle. So they have each filed their suggested cuts. Also the judge has issued a *tentative* claims construction order, asking for reaction from the parties and saying he may well make changes on his own initiative as more evidence is on the table.

Oracle suggested a reduction to 75 claims, and believes the case go forward regardless of Google's request to have the USPTO reexamine prior art claims. As for Google, they suggested a reduction to just 20 claims.

On Friday, the judge went further and slashed the number of claims to just 3. The other 129 claims cann't be reconsidered from this point forward. The case has now swung strongly in Google's favour.

If Oracle still insists on having a piece of the Android pie, they may want to consider a new path that their adopted family at Sun were smart to avoid. In the meantime, the Oracle v. Google case carries on, but with much less of the Android ecosystem at stake.

The Conclusion section of the judge's order reads like this:

The constructions set forth above will apply in this dispute. The Court will reserve the authority, on its own motion, to modify these constructions if further evidence warrants such a modification. Additionally, by NOON ON MAY 6, 2011, each side may file a five-page critique (double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font, no footnotes, and no attachments) limited to points of critical concern. This is an opportunity for the parties to focus solely on their most cogent critique, not to rehash every point made in the briefs and at the hearing. No replies, please.

[Via: Groklaw]