Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-58/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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO PROHIBIT DEFENDANT FROM ARGUING

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION TO THE JURY

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC.

Defendant.

___________________________________/

Informatica (“INFA”) has moved to prohibit Business Objects Data Integration, Inc.

(“BODI”) from presenting evidence and argument on claim construction issues to the jury,

specifically regarding the interpretation of Claim 1 of the '670 patent. That claim concerns a

“computer implemented method for transforming data in a data warehousing application, comprising

the steps of . . . storing metadata corresponding to a plurality of transformation objects, wherein the

transformation objects have at least one transformation object input port for accepting data and at

least one transformation object output port for outputting transformed data and particular

transformation objects transform data according to the metadata corresponding to that particular

transformation object.” ‘670 patent, col.19, l. 59 - col. 2, l.4. Having considered the papers and the

argument of counsel, the Court grants INFA’s motion. Because INFA did not object to BODI’s

opening statement, which referenced this theory, or make its own affirmative motion earlier to

preclude this theory, INFA may not argue to the jury or otherwise take advantage of BODI's failure

to introduce evidence on this point due to this ruling.

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 622 Filed 03/21/07 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

Judge White adopted INFA’s proposed construction of “transformation object” as: “A

reusable component for processing data according to predefined instructions.” He rejected BODI's

narrower interpretation which was based, in part, on its argument that during the prosecution history,

INFA added limitations to overcome the prior art rejection. In particular, BODI unsuccessfully

relied on a portion of the prosecution history to support its proposed construction of “transformation

object” as requiring that each object have “‘related metadata which defines how that particular

transformation object is to process incoming data.’” BODI's Resp. Cl. Const. Brief at 11 (quoting

5/26/99 Amendment and Response re Appl. No. 08/966,449). 

BODI attempted to raise the same prosecution history regarding the May 1999 Amendment

in front of the jury during its cross-examination of INFA’s infringement expert before the Court

sustained INFA’s objection: 

Q. And here you'll see that after the claim was initially

 rejected, what was added was the following lines -- well, first

of all, "constructed" was taken out. And what was added was

"storing metadata corresponding to a plurality of" -- well,

"if", "of", and "transformation" was there before. "And

wherein the transformations objects have" -- and some things

were added, and the words "particular transformations," and

"particular" was added, "transformed data", "according to the

metadata corresponding to that particular transformation

object".

Do you see that?

A. I see that.

 Q. So this language was added in order to distinguish the

patent from the prior art, correct?

A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. Do you recall what the reasonable -- what the office action

that Informatica was reacting to when it made this amendment?

A. No, I don't.

Q. Isn't it true that the patent office said, Transformation

objects are in the prior art, you've got to show us why yours

is different?

MR. HADDEN: Objection, your Honor. The claims have

been construed. This prosecution history is irrelevant, and

there's no doctrine of equivalence issue in this case.

March 16, 2007 Trial Transcript at 697:11 - 698:9. 

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 622 Filed 03/21/07 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

In its trial brief, filed during pretrial proceedings, Defendant similarly argued to this Court

that “a particular ‘transformation object’ that has particular ‘metadata’ corresponding to it must

mean that a transformation object does not inherently contain metadata.” Def. Trial Brief at 7:4-6. 

In the context of the motions in limine, this Court rejected BODI’s request for “clarification” of

Judge White’s construction of “transformation object” in accordance with this view so as to

embrace BODI’s theory that “transformation object” must be construed to be separate and distinct

from its related metadata. BODI acknowledged that: “If BODI's understanding of the Court's claim

construction is correct, the infringement issue may be decided in BODI's favor as a matter of law. If

BODI is incorrect, it may be that part of the infringement issue would be decided against BODI as a

matter of law (leaving the factual issues of actual usage and intent to induce infringement for the

jury).” Opp. to Pl's MIL No. 2 at 8:22-9:2. Thus, BODI recognized that this issue is one for the

Court, not for the jury. However, BODI argued in connection with this motion and INFA’s

objection to its cross-examination of INFA’s expert based on the prosecution history that “we’re

allowed to argue our view of the Court’s interpretation [of the claim], and they’re allowed to argue

theirs.” March 16, 2007 Trial Transcript at 720:10-12. The Court rejected this view.

In an attempt to avoid this Court’s prior rejection of BODI's argument that the metadata

(BODI's ATL instructions for EDFs) cannot be part of the component (Def's MIL No.1 at 15), BODI

has slightly rephrased its argument to contend “that it does not have metadata that corresponds to

any particular transformation object - all it stores is metadata. EDF metadata instead may be

implemented in different ways based on how BODI's optimizing engine determines the most optimal

way to implement the transformation process.” BODI's Brief re Non-Infr. Position at 3 (emphasis

added). However, this contention is really the same claim construction argument previously rejected

by the Court, and the Court was aware then of the “corresponding” language of the claim. 

Accordingly, BODI is precluded from presenting expert testimony contradicting the Court’s

construction that the transformation object can include the metadata. CytoLogix Corp. v. Ventana

Medical Systems, Inc., 424 F.3d 1168, 1172-74 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that “it appears that the

conflicting expert views as to claim construction created confusion and may have led to a verdict of

infringement with respect to the asserted claims of the '061 patent that was not supported by

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 622 Filed 03/21/07 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

substantial evidence under the district court's claim construction,” but that evidence otherwise

supported finding of infringement.)

This order disposes of docket no. 615.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2007 _____________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 622 Filed 03/21/07 Page 4 of 4