Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-45/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 FURTHER BRIEFING

ON JURY INSTRUCTIONS

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA Trial Date: March 12, 2007

INTEGRATION, INC.

Defendant.

___________________________________/

To assist the Court in advance of the March 6, 2007 pretrial conference by clarifying matters

raised in the proposed jury instructions, the parties shall file and serve short supplemental materials on

the following issues by 10:00 a.m., March 5, 2007:

1) The parties shall brief Defendant’s objection to Plaintiff’s references to version 5.0 of

ActaWorks in its proposed jury instructions nos. 14 and 35, on the ground that Plaintiff

has only come forward with analysis of infringement with respect to version 5.2 and

later. Any references to infringement analysis shall cite specific portions of relevant

exhibits.

2) In light of its objection to Plaintiff’s reference to Business Objects’ acquisition of Acta

at 3:24-25, Defendant shall propose alternative language to describe succinctly the

transaction by which BODI was created.

3) On the issue of identifying the effective filing date of the patent application in proposed

instruction no. 45, the parties shall brief whether the effective filing date of claim 11 of

the ‘775 patent was November 7, 1997 or November 16, 1999.

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 528 Filed 03/01/07 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

4) Plaintiff shall file a brief opposition to Defendant’s 2/15/07 Supplemental Materials for

Clarification of Pretrial Filings on the issue of whether Defendant disclosed its

obviousness theory based on prior art other than the VMark Technical Note, Data Stage

Architecture Overview, and whether to limit the exhibits identified in Plaintiff’s

proposed instruction No. 47 to that particular prior art reference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2007

___ ____ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 528 Filed 03/01/07 Page 2 of 2