Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03670/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03670-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1836(b) - Civil Action to Protect Trade Secrets

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TERADATA CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAP SE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO (JCS) 

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO 

ISSUE LETTERS OF REQUEST

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiffs Teradata Corporation; Teradata US, Inc.; and Teradata Operations, Inc. 

(collectively, “Teradata”) ask the Court to issue letters of request under the Hague Convention to 

take discovery in Germany from non-party Infolytics AG and certain of its employees. 

Defendants SAP SE; SAP of America, Inc.; and SAP Labs, LLC (collectively, “SAP”) seek 

changes to the proposed letters of request, arguing that Teradata’s synopsis of the case is biased 

and that SAP should be entitled to equal time in any depositions taken pursuant to the letters.

“[B]ecause the letter rogatory constitutes a request from the Court for assistance, not from 

a party, care should be taken to ensure that the synopsis of the case is not unduly argumentative, or 

state or suggest that the Court has reached factual conclusions at this stage of the proceedings.” 

Fid. Int’l Currency Advisor A Fund, LLC v. United States, Civ. Nos. 05-40151-FDS & 06-40130-

FDS, 2007 WL 9412764, at *4 (D. Mass. May 23, 2007). SAP is correct that Teradata’s synopsis 

fails to provide a neutral statement of the case. The Court is concerned, however, that SAP’s 

proposed revisions tend to overcorrect and tilt the scale in SAP’s favor. Barring agreement by the 

parties to some other language, the Court will therefore issue letters of request with the following 

synopsis:

Case 3:18-cv-03670-WHO Document 241 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 3
2

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

(b) Summary of the Complaint/Counterclaims. Teradata’s Complaint 

alleges claims for (i) trade secret misappropriation under U.S. Federal 

Law (18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.); (ii) trade secret misappropriation 

under California State Law (Cal. Civil Code § 3426, et seq.); 

(iii) copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; (iv) Unlawful 

Tying under 15 U.S.C. §ֻ§ 1, 14; and (v) attempted monopolization 

under 15 U.S.C. § 2 through SAP’s alleged anticompetitive conduct 

directed at Teradata and alleged misuse of Teradata’s intellectual 

property. SAP’s Answer denies these allegations, and SAP’s 

Counterclaims allege claims for infringement of five SAP patents 

under 35 U.S.C. § 271 through Teradata’s alleged use of SAP’s

intellectual property.

The case concerns enterprise software. The parties entered a joint 

venture in 2008 that allowed SAP’s “Business Warehouse” product 

to use Teradata’s “Teradata Database” product. In 2011, SAP released 

its own “HANA” product that competed with Teradata’s product. 

Teradata contends that SAP used Teradata’s intellectual property 

obtained through the joint venture to develop SAP’s HANA product, 

and that SAP has sought to coerce customers to use the HANA 

product rather than the Teradata Database product in ways that violate 

United States antitrust laws. SAP contends that the Teradata Database 

product infringes SAP’s patents. 

During the joint venture, SAP contracted with Infolytics AG to 

develop software integrating SAP’s Business Warehouse product 

with the Teradata Database product. Some Infolytics employees were 

given “@sap.com” email addresses, which SAP contends was a 

component of those employees’ limited “contractor-user” level of 

access to SAP’s network. The Infolytics employees who received 

SAP email addresses included Thomas Anhaus and Fekke Fekkes.

If the parties agree that any changes or additions to that language are necessary, they may so 

stipulate, but if the parties cannot reach an agreement as to any changes, the letters of request must 

include the language above.

SAP’s request for equal time to cross-examine witnesses during depositions is GRANTED, 

and must be included in the letters of request.

SAP’s remaining proposed changes to the letters of request are not addressed in the 

parties’ briefs and appear to be minor. The Court expects that the parties can reach an agreement 

as to those issues. If the parties cannot reach an agreement as to any non-substantive language, 

Teradata’s preference as the requesting party will control.

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer telephonically or by other electronic means 

to resolve any outstanding issues. If all such issues are resolved, Teradata shall file amended 

proposed letters of request no later than April 14, 2020, and SAP shall concurrently file its 

Case 3:18-cv-03670-WHO Document 241 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 3
3

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

certification that the proposed letters of request conform to this order. In the unlikely event that 

any substantive issues remain unresolved, the parties shall file a joint letter brief not exceeding 

five single-spaced pages by the same date.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03670-WHO Document 241 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 3