Loading
Technology
9 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Damages, Lost Profits, Software, Contracts, Economics
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
California State
Hewlett-Packard Company and Oracle Corporation litigated in California over Oracle’s obligations tied to a prior settlement that addressed Oracle software on HP’s Itanium-based server platform. After Oracle announced it would no longer develop new versions of certain Oracle software for that platform, HP pursued claims in Santa Clara County Superior Court, and the dispute proceeded through trial and post-trial proceedings that produced a large damages award in HP’s favor. The case also generated appellate activity earlier in the matter, including a separate appeal addressing issues connected to an anti-SLAPP motion.
In 2021, the California Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) reviewed the judgment and related rulings after a jury awarded approximately $3.014 billion in damages to HP, and the court affirmed the outcome in that appeal. The California Supreme Court later denied review, leaving the Court of Appeal decision in place. In this record, the dispute is framed as a breach of contract claim arising from the settlement’s commitments about continued software support for HP’s Itanium servers, with damages tied to the consequences the jury attributed to Oracle’s decision to stop future development on that platform.
HP and Oracle entered a confidential settlement agreement following an earlier public dispute, and the agreement included a short provision the parties described as the “reaffirmation clause.” The later litigation focused on whether that clause created a binding obligation tied to continued support for certain HP server platforms. The settlement agreement served as the contract foundation for the claims and remedies that followed.
HP claimed Oracle decided and announced in March 2011 that it would no longer offer new versions of its product suite on Itanium-based servers and then discontinued related development and porting work. Oracle denied breach and denied causation and harm, framing the dispute around what the settlement agreement required and what damages, if any, could be awarded. This event set the case on a path toward contract interpretation, liability, and damages litigation.
The trial court denied Oracle’s anti-SLAPP motion as untimely after the motion was heard in early April 2013. Oracle then filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 2013, which triggered an interlocutory appeal and stayed the proceedings to the extent affected by the appealed order. While the appeal was pending, the phase 2 trial date was vacated, and the resulting delay later became part of the procedural history referenced in later damages and post-trial issues.
In a published decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, addressing timeliness and concluding the motion was late under any reasonable construction of the facts. The ruling resolved that procedural detour and cleared the way for the case to return to the trial court for the next phase. The litigation then moved back toward a trial on breach and damages.
After remand following the anti-SLAPP appeal, the parties proceeded with the phase 2 jury trial on breach and damages in May and June 2016. The jury heard testimony over 19 days from 19 witnesses. On damages, HP presented economist Jonathan Orszag as its damages expert, and Oracle presented Ramsey Shehadeh as its damages expert. Their testimony framed the competing positions on causation and the measure of claimed lost-profit damages tied to Oracle’s decision to stop developing new versions for the Itanium platform.
The jury found Oracle breached the settlement agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded HP $3.014 billion in damages, including past and future lost profits. After remaining causes of action were dismissed, HP elected not to pursue specific performance as a remedy for its contract cause of action, and the trial court entered judgment for $3.014 billion and allowable costs. The trial court also denied HP’s request for prejudgment interest, and Oracle appealed while HP filed a cross-appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding the reaffirmation clause required Oracle to continue to offer its product suite on certain HP server platforms and upholding submission of the contract and implied-covenant claims to the jury. The court also rejected Oracle’s arguments seeking reversal of the $3.014 billion damages award, including challenges directed at the lost-profits damages presentation offered at trial through the parties’ damages experts.
The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation (H044371). With review denied, the Court of Appeal’s affirmance remained the controlling appellate resolution reflected in these materials. This marked the final step shown in the provided record for the appellate phase of the case.
Court:
California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District
Case Name:
Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation
Contract Disputes
Damages Calculations
Financial Analysis
Economic Analysis
Enterprise Software
Software Valuation
Technology Valuation
Hewlett-Packard Company and Oracle Corporation litigated in California over Oracle’s obligations tied to a prior settlement that addressed Oracle software on HP’s Itanium-based server platform. After Oracle announced it would no longer develop new versions of certain Oracle software for that platform, HP pursued claims in Santa Clara County Superior Court, and the dispute proceeded through trial and post-trial proceedings that produced a large damages award in HP’s favor. The case also generated appellate activity earlier in the matter, including a separate appeal addressing issues connected to an anti-SLAPP motion.
In 2021, the California Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) reviewed the judgment and related rulings after a jury awarded approximately $3.014 billion in damages to HP, and the court affirmed the outcome in that appeal. The California Supreme Court later denied review, leaving the Court of Appeal decision in place. In this record, the dispute is framed as a breach of contract claim arising from the settlement’s commitments about continued software support for HP’s Itanium servers, with damages tied to the consequences the jury attributed to Oracle’s decision to stop future development on that platform.
HP and Oracle entered a confidential settlement agreement following an earlier public dispute, and the agreement included a short provision the parties described as the “reaffirmation clause.” The later litigation focused on whether that clause created a binding obligation tied to continued support for certain HP server platforms. The settlement agreement served as the contract foundation for the claims and remedies that followed.
HP claimed Oracle decided and announced in March 2011 that it would no longer offer new versions of its product suite on Itanium-based servers and then discontinued related development and porting work. Oracle denied breach and denied causation and harm, framing the dispute around what the settlement agreement required and what damages, if any, could be awarded. This event set the case on a path toward contract interpretation, liability, and damages litigation.
The trial court denied Oracle’s anti-SLAPP motion as untimely after the motion was heard in early April 2013. Oracle then filed a notice of appeal on April 8, 2013, which triggered an interlocutory appeal and stayed the proceedings to the extent affected by the appealed order. While the appeal was pending, the phase 2 trial date was vacated, and the resulting delay later became part of the procedural history referenced in later damages and post-trial issues.
In a published decision, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion, addressing timeliness and concluding the motion was late under any reasonable construction of the facts. The ruling resolved that procedural detour and cleared the way for the case to return to the trial court for the next phase. The litigation then moved back toward a trial on breach and damages.
After remand following the anti-SLAPP appeal, the parties proceeded with the phase 2 jury trial on breach and damages in May and June 2016. The jury heard testimony over 19 days from 19 witnesses. On damages, HP presented economist Jonathan Orszag as its damages expert, and Oracle presented Ramsey Shehadeh as its damages expert. Their testimony framed the competing positions on causation and the measure of claimed lost-profit damages tied to Oracle’s decision to stop developing new versions for the Itanium platform.
The jury found Oracle breached the settlement agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded HP $3.014 billion in damages, including past and future lost profits. After remaining causes of action were dismissed, HP elected not to pursue specific performance as a remedy for its contract cause of action, and the trial court entered judgment for $3.014 billion and allowable costs. The trial court also denied HP’s request for prejudgment interest, and Oracle appealed while HP filed a cross-appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, concluding the reaffirmation clause required Oracle to continue to offer its product suite on certain HP server platforms and upholding submission of the contract and implied-covenant claims to the jury. The court also rejected Oracle’s arguments seeking reversal of the $3.014 billion damages award, including challenges directed at the lost-profits damages presentation offered at trial through the parties’ damages experts.
The California Supreme Court denied the petition for review in Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation (H044371). With review denied, the Court of Appeal’s affirmance remained the controlling appellate resolution reflected in these materials. This marked the final step shown in the provided record for the appellate phase of the case.
1. Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff and Defense)
Plaintiff: Economist Jonathan Orszag is identified in the appellate record as HP’s damages expert. His testimony addressed HP’s damages position, including lost-profit damages, in the phase of the case that tried breach and damages issues. The record describes his role as providing HP’s damages analysis rather than serving as a technical expert on software development.
Defense: Ramsey Shehadeh is identified in the appellate record as Oracle’s damages expert. His testimony addressed Oracle’s damages position and responded to HP’s damages analysis in the breach-and-damages phase of the case. The record reflects him as Oracle’s damages witness rather than a contract-interpretation or software-technical expert.
2. Lost Profits Expert Witness
A lost profits expert is often engaged to quantify past and future profit impacts when a party alleges it would have earned more absent the challenged conduct. In disputes like this, that work commonly involves reviewing sales history, customer purchase patterns, and market data, then modeling alternative revenue paths under the asserted contract-compliant scenario. The goal is to present a damages calculation that can be tested against business records and assumptions shown in evidence.
3. Financial Analysis Expert Witness
A financial analysis expert is often engaged to examine internal financial records, projections, and accounting treatment relevant to claimed losses. In high-dollar disputes, this role commonly includes validating data sources used in damages models, checking consistency across reporting periods, and identifying what information is and is not supported by company documents. This support can help clarify what the numbers do, and do not show.
4. Software Expert Witness
A software expert is often engaged to explain what “porting,” ongoing development, and version support typically involve from a technical standpoint. In a case centered on discontinuing software development for a particular platform, this expert commonly helps the court and jury understand the practical meaning of continuing to offer new versions, the work required to keep compatibility, and how technical roadmaps intersect with contractual commitments. The focus is usually on explaining technical facts in plain terms, not on assigning fault.
1. A short settlement clause can operate like a long-term performance contract.
What looks like a brief “reaffirmation” sentence can end up functioning as an ongoing obligation with real operational consequences when the business relationship later breaks down.
2. “Platform support” disputes turn on how contract language maps to real-world performance.
The fight is rarely just technical. It’s whether the agreement captured what continued availability, future versions, and compatibility were supposed to look like in practice.
3. Roadmap announcements can anchor the liability narrative and the damages window.
Once a company publicly declares it is ending development for a platform, that date often becomes the reference point for customer behavior, internal planning, and the alleged economic impact.
4. In high-dollar cases, the damages model must be evidence-driven and appeal-ready.
Lost-profits theories tend to draw intense post-trial scrutiny, so assumptions, inputs, and causation links need to be transparent, document-supported, and resilient to cross-examination.
5. Remedy choices shape what you must prove and how the case is presented.
A strategy focused on monetary damages requires a disciplined “but-for” narrative (what would have happened absent the breach), while performance-based remedies typically emphasize feasibility and future conduct.
6. Procedural detours can change timing, cost, and leverage even without deciding the merits.
Interlocutory motion practice and related appeals can pause progress, shift sequencing, and materially affect settlement posture in complex contract disputes.
The Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation Itanium dispute is a reminder that enterprise-technology breakups often become contract cases not because the technology is mysterious, but because the business dependence on long-life platforms makes contractual language about “support” and “future versions” intensely consequential. After Oracle announced it would stop developing new versions of certain software for HP’s Itanium-based servers, HP sued in Santa Clara County Superior Court, and the matter ultimately produced a $3.014 billion judgment that the California Court of Appeal affirmed in 2021. The California Supreme Court later denied review, leaving the appellate decision in place.
For attorneys, the durable lesson is how quickly a settlement provision meant to calm a prior dispute can become the controlling obligation years later, especially when a vendor changes strategy and a platform’s customer base is still making long-term purchasing decisions. The case also demonstrates how damages proof becomes the “second trial” in these disputes: the fight is not only over what the contract required, but over whether the claimed economic story is grounded in evidence strongly enough to survive post-trial scrutiny and appellate review.
What was the core legal issue in Hewlett-Packard v. Oracle (Itanium) in California?
At its center, the case was a breach of contract dispute about whether a prior settlement agreement required Oracle to continue offering and developing certain Oracle software for HP’s Itanium-based server platforms. The dispute turned on how the settlement’s reaffirmation language was interpreted and whether Oracle’s later decision to stop developing new versions for Itanium violated those commitments.
Why did Oracle’s March 2011 announcement matter so much?
Product-support cases often hinge on timing. The March 2011 announcement is treated as a critical turning point because it framed HP’s claim that Oracle stopped future development and porting work for Itanium. That timing then connects to how HP argued customers reacted and how HP modeled the economic impact that followed.
What did the jury decide, and what was the damages amount?
After the breach-and-damages phase was tried in Santa Clara County Superior Court, the jury found Oracle breached the settlement agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded HP $3.014 billion in damages, including past and future lost profits. The trial court entered judgment in that amount after the post-trial steps described in the record.
Who were the publicly disclosed damages experts at the 2016 trial?
The appellate decision identifies economist Jonathan Orszag as HP’s damages expert and Ramsey Shehadeh as Oracle’s damages expert. Their testimony presented competing views about causation and the measure of claimed lost-profit damages tied to Oracle’s decision to stop developing new versions for Itanium.
What happened on appeal in 2021?
In June 2021, the California Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) affirmed the judgment and rejected Oracle’s challenges to liability and damages, leaving the $3.014 billion outcome intact. The appellate decision addressed contract interpretation issues tied to the reaffirmation clause and reviewed arguments aimed at the damages presentation and related rulings.
1. Damages Expert Witness (Plaintiff and Defense)
Plaintiff: Economist Jonathan Orszag is identified in the appellate record as HP’s damages expert. His testimony addressed HP’s damages position, including lost-profit damages, in the phase of the case that tried breach and damages issues. The record describes his role as providing HP’s damages analysis rather than serving as a technical expert on software development.
Defense: Ramsey Shehadeh is identified in the appellate record as Oracle’s damages expert. His testimony addressed Oracle’s damages position and responded to HP’s damages analysis in the breach-and-damages phase of the case. The record reflects him as Oracle’s damages witness rather than a contract-interpretation or software-technical expert.
2. Lost Profits Expert Witness
A lost profits expert is often engaged to quantify past and future profit impacts when a party alleges it would have earned more absent the challenged conduct. In disputes like this, that work commonly involves reviewing sales history, customer purchase patterns, and market data, then modeling alternative revenue paths under the asserted contract-compliant scenario. The goal is to present a damages calculation that can be tested against business records and assumptions shown in evidence.
3. Financial Analysis Expert Witness
A financial analysis expert is often engaged to examine internal financial records, projections, and accounting treatment relevant to claimed losses. In high-dollar disputes, this role commonly includes validating data sources used in damages models, checking consistency across reporting periods, and identifying what information is and is not supported by company documents. This support can help clarify what the numbers do, and do not show.
4. Software Expert Witness
A software expert is often engaged to explain what “porting,” ongoing development, and version support typically involve from a technical standpoint. In a case centered on discontinuing software development for a particular platform, this expert commonly helps the court and jury understand the practical meaning of continuing to offer new versions, the work required to keep compatibility, and how technical roadmaps intersect with contractual commitments. The focus is usually on explaining technical facts in plain terms, not on assigning fault.
1. A short settlement clause can operate like a long-term performance contract.
What looks like a brief “reaffirmation” sentence can end up functioning as an ongoing obligation with real operational consequences when the business relationship later breaks down.
2. “Platform support” disputes turn on how contract language maps to real-world performance.
The fight is rarely just technical. It’s whether the agreement captured what continued availability, future versions, and compatibility were supposed to look like in practice.
3. Roadmap announcements can anchor the liability narrative and the damages window.
Once a company publicly declares it is ending development for a platform, that date often becomes the reference point for customer behavior, internal planning, and the alleged economic impact.
4. In high-dollar cases, the damages model must be evidence-driven and appeal-ready.
Lost-profits theories tend to draw intense post-trial scrutiny, so assumptions, inputs, and causation links need to be transparent, document-supported, and resilient to cross-examination.
5. Remedy choices shape what you must prove and how the case is presented.
A strategy focused on monetary damages requires a disciplined “but-for” narrative (what would have happened absent the breach), while performance-based remedies typically emphasize feasibility and future conduct.
6. Procedural detours can change timing, cost, and leverage even without deciding the merits.
Interlocutory motion practice and related appeals can pause progress, shift sequencing, and materially affect settlement posture in complex contract disputes.
The Hewlett-Packard Company v. Oracle Corporation Itanium dispute is a reminder that enterprise-technology breakups often become contract cases not because the technology is mysterious, but because the business dependence on long-life platforms makes contractual language about “support” and “future versions” intensely consequential. After Oracle announced it would stop developing new versions of certain software for HP’s Itanium-based servers, HP sued in Santa Clara County Superior Court, and the matter ultimately produced a $3.014 billion judgment that the California Court of Appeal affirmed in 2021. The California Supreme Court later denied review, leaving the appellate decision in place.
For attorneys, the durable lesson is how quickly a settlement provision meant to calm a prior dispute can become the controlling obligation years later, especially when a vendor changes strategy and a platform’s customer base is still making long-term purchasing decisions. The case also demonstrates how damages proof becomes the “second trial” in these disputes: the fight is not only over what the contract required, but over whether the claimed economic story is grounded in evidence strongly enough to survive post-trial scrutiny and appellate review.
What was the core legal issue in Hewlett-Packard v. Oracle (Itanium) in California?
At its center, the case was a breach of contract dispute about whether a prior settlement agreement required Oracle to continue offering and developing certain Oracle software for HP’s Itanium-based server platforms. The dispute turned on how the settlement’s reaffirmation language was interpreted and whether Oracle’s later decision to stop developing new versions for Itanium violated those commitments.
Why did Oracle’s March 2011 announcement matter so much?
Product-support cases often hinge on timing. The March 2011 announcement is treated as a critical turning point because it framed HP’s claim that Oracle stopped future development and porting work for Itanium. That timing then connects to how HP argued customers reacted and how HP modeled the economic impact that followed.
What did the jury decide, and what was the damages amount?
After the breach-and-damages phase was tried in Santa Clara County Superior Court, the jury found Oracle breached the settlement agreement and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded HP $3.014 billion in damages, including past and future lost profits. The trial court entered judgment in that amount after the post-trial steps described in the record.
Who were the publicly disclosed damages experts at the 2016 trial?
The appellate decision identifies economist Jonathan Orszag as HP’s damages expert and Ramsey Shehadeh as Oracle’s damages expert. Their testimony presented competing views about causation and the measure of claimed lost-profit damages tied to Oracle’s decision to stop developing new versions for Itanium.
What happened on appeal in 2021?
In June 2021, the California Court of Appeal (Sixth Appellate District) affirmed the judgment and rejected Oracle’s challenges to liability and damages, leaving the $3.014 billion outcome intact. The appellate decision addressed contract interpretation issues tied to the reaffirmation clause and reviewed arguments aimed at the damages presentation and related rulings.
What role did the anti-SLAPP appeal play in the overall case?
The earlier anti-SLAPP dispute did not resolve the merits of the breach and damages claims, but it mattered procedurally. The trial court found the anti-SLAPP motion untimely, Oracle pursued an interlocutory appeal, and proceedings were stayed to the extent affected by that appealed order. The case then returned to the trial court for the later breach-and-damages phase.
Contract Disputes
Damages Calculations
Financial Analysis
Economic Analysis
Enterprise Software
Software Valuation
Technology Valuation
Technology
Patent, +4
Technology
Artificial Intelligence, +4
Technology
What role did the anti-SLAPP appeal play in the overall case?
The earlier anti-SLAPP dispute did not resolve the merits of the breach and damages claims, but it mattered procedurally. The trial court found the anti-SLAPP motion untimely, Oracle pursued an interlocutory appeal, and proceedings were stayed to the extent affected by that appealed order. The case then returned to the trial court for the later breach-and-damages phase.