Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-38/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INFORMATICA CORPORATION

Plaintiff, No. C 02-03378 EDL

v. ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION 

OF PRETRIAL FILINGS

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC.

Defendant.

___________________________________/

To assist the Court by clarifying matters raised in the pretrial papers, the parties shall file and

serve the following materials as soon as possible (not necessarily at the same time), and no later than

February 15, 2007:

1) Redlined versions of each proposed jury instruction based on the Model Patent Jury

Instructions of the Northern District of California, September 2004, indicating where it

modifies the model instruction(s);

2) Where the parties dispute whether a matter has been adequately disclosed such that it

may be raised at trial, the party responding to an objection of inadequate disclosure

should provide citations to specific portions of transcripts or expert reports where a party

contends that an expert or non-expert witness disclosed a particular subject matter,

and/or specific portions of summary judgment or other briefs filed with the Court, and/or

Final Infringement Contentions or Final Invalidity Contentions, such as (a) BODI’s

references to its Final Invalidity Contentions and the sufficiency of Dr. Kelly’s report

in paragraphs 15 through 22 of the Joint Pretrial Statement, and (b) Informatica’s

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 473 Filed 02/12/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

argument in opposition to BODI’s Motion In Limine No. 1: “There is no new theory

asserted between the FICs and Mr. McGoveran’s reports and testimony.” Pl’s Opp.

Def’s MIL No.1 at 8:27-9:1 and n.1.

3) For non-expert witnesses, identify their position(s) and/or role and dates of employment

with a party, where applicable. This may be submitted as an amended Joint Pretrial

Statement, revising the list of witnesses to be called in order to reflect this additional

information.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2007 ______________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 473 Filed 02/12/07 Page 2 of 2