Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The ‘775 is a continuation-in-part of and claims the benefit of application Ser. No.

08/966,449, which designated the ‘670 patent.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INFORMATICA CORPORATION, a

Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC., formerly known as

ACTA TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendant.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 02-3378 JSW

ORDER RE CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Now before the Court are the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiff

Informatica Corporation (“Informatica”) and defendant Business Objects Data Integration, Inc.

(“BODI”), formerly known as Acta Technology, Inc. Having carefully reviewed the parties’

papers, considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby denies in

part and grants in part the motion filed by BODI and denies the motion filed by Informatica.

There are four patents at issue in this case, United States Patent Nos. 6,014,670 (“the ‘670

patent”) and 6,339,775 B1 (“the ‘775 patent”),1 both entitled “Apparatus and Method for

Performing Data Transformations in Data Warehousing,” United States Patent No. 6,208,990

B1 (“the ‘990 patent”) entitled “Method and Architecture For Automated Optimization of ETL

Throughput in Data Warehousing Applications,” and United States Patent No. 6,044,374 (“the

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 341 Filed 10/11/06 Page 1 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

‘374 patent”) 

entitled “Method and Apparatus for Sharing Metadata Between Multiple Data Marts Through

Object References.”

BACKGROUND

Informatica and BODI are competitors in the field of business analytics software, which

enables enterprises to automate integration, analysis and delivery of key data. Informatica

designs and markets software that enables its customers to transform and update data within

various data warehouses and data marts, and to share data among enterprise constituencies. 

BODI designs and markets a real-time data integration platform that intelligently manages and

optimizes the performance of an enterprise’s data infrastructure. 

Informatica filed this suit alleging BODI infringes the ‘670, ‘775, ‘990, and ‘374 patents. 

In addition to denying it infringes, BODI asserted counterclaims of patent invalidity,

unenforceability, and non-infringement. 

The first two patents, the ‘670 patent and the ‘775 patent, claim an apparatus and method

for transforming data in data warehousing applications. The patents additionally disclose a

functional specification for a transformation description language, which describes how data is

to be manipulated in a data warehousing application. During the claim construction

proceedings, the parties agreed that a data warehousing application is software that extracts,

transforms and loads data into one or more databases, where the data is useful for decision

support, usually across an enterprise. The ‘990 patent pertains to an apparatus and method for

automating optimal throughput of the data extraction/transformation/loading (“ETL”) process in

data warehousing applications. Finally, the ‘374 patent relates to a method and apparatus for

sharing metadata between multiple data marts through the use of object references. The parties

agreed during the claim construction proceedings on the following terms: (1) “metadata” is

“data about data;” (2) a “data mart application” is “software that extracts, transforms and loads

data into one or more databases, where the database(s) contain a subset of corporate data useful

for decision support of an aspect of a business;” and (3) “repository” is “an abstraction for a

database.”

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 341 Filed 10/11/06 Page 2 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The Court issued an order construing the following terms: (1) “port” in the ‘670 patent

to mean “an abstraction for describing the inputs and/or outputs of sources, targets or

transformation objects;” (2) “transformation object” in the ‘670 and ‘775 patents to mean: “a

reusable component for processing data according to predefined instructions;” 

(3) “transformation component” in the ‘990 patent to mean: “A transformation component is the

same as a transformation object, which is a software binary file acting as an individual unit that

possesses built-in autonomy and encapsulates the functionalities of a transformation;”(4) “data

mart” in the ‘374 patent to mean: “An analytical database containing a subset of corporate

information useful for decision support for an aspect of a business;” and (5) “reference” in the

‘374 patent to mean: “A reference represents an abstraction for pointing to the contents of a

shared folder within the same repository or in the global data mart repository.”

 The Court will address the additional specific facts as required in the analysis.

ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard on Summary Judgment.

Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Union States Gypsum Co. v.

Nat’l Gypsum Co., 74 F.3d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The burden of demonstrating the

absence of any genuine issue of material fact rests with the moving party. SRI Int’l v.

Matsushita Elec. Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In order to defeat summary

judgment, the non-moving party must do “more than simply show that there is some

metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, the non-moving party must set forth “specific facts showing

that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(2); Matsushita Elec., 475 U.S. at 587. 

B. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.

A. Infringement.

Both parties now move for summary judgment on the issue of infringement. BODI

argues that Informatica does not have any evidence of direct, contributory or induced

infringement for any of the four patents-at-issue. Informatica only affirmatively moves for

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 341 Filed 10/11/06 Page 3 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 BODI filed objections to evidence submitted by Informatica in support of its reply

and Informatica seeks to file supplemental evidence in opposition to BODI’s motion on the

issue of infringement. Because the Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record

to create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment for either party on

this issue, the Court need not consider the evidence subject to these objections or request. 

Accordingly, the Court declines to rule on these evidentiary objections and denies

Informatica’s request to file the supplemental declaration, as well as the request to file the

declaration under seal, as moot.

4

summary judgment on the issue of infringement with respect to the ‘670 patent.

At the hearing on the parties’ cross-motions, Informatica confirmed that it is not moving

on the basis of contributory infringement for any of the patents and that it does not have any

evidence that BODI has directly infringed the ‘374 patent. Accordingly, the Court grants

BODI’s motion on the issues of contributory infringement for all four of the patents-in-suit and

of direct infringement of the ‘374 patent.

1. The ‘670, ‘775 or ‘990 Patents.

With respect to direct infringement and induced infringement, the Court finds that

Informatica submitted evidence that creates a question of fact as to whether BODI has infringed,

or induced its customers to infringe, the ‘670, ‘775 or ‘990 patents. The Court further finds that

although the evidence submitted by Informatica is sufficient to show there is a question of fact

with respect to whether BODI infringes or induces infringement and thus precludes summary

judgment in BODI’s favor, the evidence is insufficient to warrant summary judgment in

Informatica’s favor on the ‘670 patent. Although a reasonable juror could conclude based on

the evidence in the record that BODI has infringed or induced its customers to infringe, a

reasonable juror could also come to the opposite conclusion. Therefore, the Court cannot find

that Informatica would be entitled to a directed verdict if the evidence in the record went

uncontroverted at trial. See Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Toshiba Corp. 993 F.2d 858, 869 (Fed.

Cir. 1993) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986)) (“the standard

for summary judgment is virtually the same as that for a directed verdict, viz., that ‘there can be

but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict’”). Accordingly, the Court denies BODI’s

motion as to direct and induced infringement on the ‘670, ‘775 and ‘990 patents and denies

Informatica’s motion as to infringement on the ‘670 patent.2

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 341 Filed 10/11/06 Page 4 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

2. The ‘374 Patent.

BODI moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Informatica has no evidence

BODI induced infringement of the ‘374 patent. Section 271(b) of the Patent Act provides that

“whoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. 

§ 271(b). To prove that a defendant has induced infringement, a plaintiff must demonstrate

“first that there has been direct infringement ... and ... second, that the alleged infringer

knowingly induced infringement ....” MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials

Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (internal quotes and citation omitted).

Informatica only asserts one claim in the ‘374 patent, claim 7, which requires in

pertinent part, “creating a second database comprised of a data mart.” According to BODI,

Informatica contends that the local repositories created by BODI’s customers when using

BODI’s Data Integrator product are the “second database” and that the local repositories store

metadata as opposed to the transformed data in the “data mart.” In its opposition, Informatica

did not challenge any of these arguments. 

The parties dispute whether the claim language “comprised of” means “including but not

limited to” or “including and limited to.” BODI argues that this term should be given the more

limited construction and thus, the second database in claim 7 would be the data mart, and only

the data mart. Informatica counters that this term should be construed more broadly, and thus,

the second database in claim 7 could include both a data mart and a local repository. The Court

need not determine whether “comprised of” should be construed narrowly because even under

the broader construction, Informatica has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that

BODI’s customers have used Data Integrator in an infringing manner by, at the very least,

creating a data mart and local repository in one database.

BODI submits evidence demonstrating that its customers always set up their local

repositories and data marts as separate databases and that BODI “does not teach its customers to

use a data mart as a local repository or to place a data mart in a local repository.” (Declaration

of Awez Syed in Support of BODI’s Motion, ¶ 27.) In response, Informatica submits evidence

demonstrating that the second database can include both the local repository and data mart and

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 341 Filed 10/11/06 Page 5 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 Informatica argues that “[s]ince BODI teaches that the local repository can be part

of a larger database and should be on the same machine as the target data mart, users would

naturally combine the two in a single database” and cites paragraph 96 of McGoveran’s

Declaration in support of this proposition. (Informatica Opp. at 22) (emphasis added.) 

However, McGoveran merely states that “users of an ETL product like Data Integrator can

create the local repository and data mart in the same database. There are several reasons that

users may do so ....” (Opp. McGoveran Decl., ¶ 96.)

4

Informatica argues that “users would often install both the local repository and the

target data mart on the same database, as BODI teaches.” (Informatica Opp. at 23.) 

However, BODI merely instructs its customer to install a local repository “on either the same

computer as the Data Integrator Job Server or the same computer as the target data

warehouse” not database. (Schumman Decl., Ex. 51 at 25) (emphasis added).

5 Because the Court is granting BODI’s motion with respect to the ‘374 patent on the

issue of infringement, the Court need not address BODI’s independent grounds for summary

judgment based on alleged inequitable conduct.

6

that there are several reasons why a customer may do so. (Declaration of David McGoveran in

Support of Informatica’s Opposition (“Opp. McGoveran Decl.”), ¶ 96.)3 Informatica further

demonstrates that BODI instructs its customers to create a local repository within an existing

shared database and instructs its customers to install a local repository and target data mart on

the same computer. (Opp. McGoveran Decl., ¶ 96, citing Declaration of David Schumann

(“Schumann Decl.”), Ex. 51.)4 Informatica has not submitted any evidence demonstrating that

BODI instructs its customers to create a local repository and a data mart within the same

database. Nor does Informatica present any evidence that any of BODI’s customers actually

created a database which contains both a local repository and a data mart. Therefore, the Court

finds that Informatica fails to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to

whether any customers directly infringed the ‘374 patent. Without any evidence of direct

infringement by BODI’s customers, Informatica’s claim for induced infringement fails. See

MEMC, 420 F.3d at 1378. Accordingly, the Court grants BODI’s motion on the issue of

induced infringement of the ‘374 patent.5

B. Validity.

Informatica moves for summary judgment on the grounds of validity, arguing that BODI

does not have evidence demonstrating that prior art meets the requirements of the claims of the

‘670, ‘775, and ‘990 patents as construed by this Court in the claims construction order. BODI

counters that Informatica is attempting to redefine certain terms in the patents and that based on

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 341 Filed 10/11/06 Page 6 of 7
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Informatica’s proposed construction under which it alleges BODI infringes, prior art invalidates

the patents-at-issue. The Court concludes that BODI presents evidence demonstrating the

existence of a question of fact as to whether the prior art invalidates the ‘670, ‘775 and ‘990

patents under the Court’s construction of the terms in its claims construction order. 

Accordingly, the Court denies Informatica’s motion on this ground.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Informatica’s motion for partial summary

judgment and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART BODI’s cross-motion for summary

judgment as follows:

(1) The Court GRANTS BODI’s motion on the issue of contributory infringement as

to all four patents-at-issue and on direct and induced infringement of the ‘374

patent; and 

(2) The Court DENIES BODI’s motion on the issue of direct and induced

infringement of the ‘670, ‘775, and ‘990 patents.

The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint statement within ten days of the date of this Order

informing the Court as to whether they agree to have this matter heard by a magistrate judge. If

the parties seek to have this case heard by a specific magistrate judge, they should so specify in

their statement. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 341 Filed 10/11/06 Page 7 of 7