Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05054/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05054-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HYPERION SOLUTIONS CORP,

Plaintiff,

v

HYPERROLL, INC et al,

Defendants. /

No C-04-5054 VRW

ORDER

Plaintiff Hyperion Solutions Corporation (“Hyperion”)

seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity for

United States patents nos 6,385,604 and 6,434,544 (“‘604 and ‘544

patents”), which are assigned to defendant HyperRoll Israel Ltd

(“HyperRoll Israel”). The other defendant, HyperRoll, Inc

(“HyperRoll USA”), is the parent company for HyperRoll Israel. 

This order addresses a number of discovery disputes between these

parties and a motion for “emergency” administrative relief filed by

HyperRoll USA.

//

//

//

Case 3:04-cv-05054-VRW Document 130 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 4
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

I

In a letter filed on August 15, 2005, Hyperion notified

the court that it objected to HyperRoll USA’s requests for

production of documents nos 72 and 73. Doc #107. These requests

for production seek all documents relating to Hyperion’s patents or

patent applications “relating to data aggregation technology” or

“relating to Essbase,” which is a proprietary name for a Hyperion

product. Hyperion objects to these requests as overbroad and as

irrelevant to this suit, which does not involve Hyperion’s patents.

The court disagrees with Hyperion. In its second amended

complaint, Hyperion asserted that the ‘604 and ‘544 patents are

invalid and that Hyperion has a defense to infringement under 35

USC § 273. Doc #50 at 5. That provision provides in relevant

part:

It shall be a defense to an action for infringement under

section 271 of this title with respect to any subject matter

that would otherwise infringe one or more claims for a method

in the patent being asserted against a person, if such person

had, acting in good faith, actually reduced the subject matter

to practice at least 1 year before the effective filing date

of such patent, and commercially used the subject matter

before the effective filing date of such patent.

35 USC § 273(b)(1). Hence, Hyperion’s patent-related activity

before the ‘604 and ‘544 patents were filed might demonstrate

whether these patents are invalid or whether 35 USC § 273 applies.

HyperRoll USA also suggests that Hyperion’s patentrelated activity after these patents were filed might bear on the

issue of non-infringement -- particularly, “when or if Hyperion

knew of the patents-in-suit, whether Hyperion characterized or

analyzed the patents-in-suit, how Hyperion’s products operate * * *

and whether Hyperion developed or otherwise uses products and/or

Case 3:04-cv-05054-VRW Document 130 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

processes that infringe the patents-in-suit.” Doc #108. The

relevance of post-filing discovery for these purposes seems

speculative based on what is now before the court.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS Hyperion to produce nonprivileged documents that HyperRoll USA specified in its requests

nos 72 and 73 and that were created before August 9, 2000, which

was the filing date for the later-filed ‘604 patent.

II

On August 25, 2005, Hyperion filed a letter with the

court requesting the court order the deposition of Michael Bealmear

(“Bealmear”), who is the current chief executive officer of

HyperRoll USA. Doc #112. Bealmear has submitted three

declarations in this case (Doc ##41, 80, 92), but apparently

HyperRoll USA still has not produced him for a deposition and has

not provided any reason why Bealmear should not be deposed. 

Hyperion once again requested the court’s assistance in this matter

in a letter filed on October 20, 2005. Doc #125. Accordingly, if

Bealmear has not yet appeared for deposition, Hyperion is granted

leave to file a motion to compel discovery and for an award of

reasonable expenses pursuant to FRCP 37(d) and is granted leave for

shortened time to bring the motion at the earliest hearing date

convenient to Hyperion’s counsel.

III

On August 30, 2005, HyperRoll USA requested leave to file

a motion to compel Hyperion’s response to HyperRoll USA’s

interrogatory no 9. Doc #113. The court GRANTS HyperRoll USA’s

Case 3:04-cv-05054-VRW Document 130 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

request to file a motion to compel and for expenses and sanctions

pursuant to FRCP 37(a)(1)(B) and (4) and is granted leave for

shortened time to bring the motion on a hearing date convenient to

HyperRoll USA’s counsel.

IV

On November 10, 2005, HyperRoll USA filed a motion for

“emergency” administrative relief regarding mediation. Doc #126. 

Apparently, the parties have agreed to mediate on December 2, 2005,

before former Judge Legge. The only dispute that remains is

whether the mediation should be one day or two days. HyperRoll USA

wants this court to order that the mediation take place only on

December 2, 2005, because a “multi-day mediation is overly

burdensome to HyperRoll USA and HyperRoll Israel.” Id at 2. 

Because HyperRoll USA has not demonstrated that it will suffer any

prejudice from mediating for an additional day, the court DENIES

HyperRoll USA’s motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05054-VRW Document 130 Filed 11/15/05 Page 4 of 4