Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-21/pdf.json

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

---

1 LYN H. PASAHOW (CSB No. 054283), Ipasahow(£fenwickcom

J. DAVID HADDEN (CSB No. 176148), dhadden(£fenwickcom

2 DARN E. DONNLLY (CSB No. 194335), ddonnelly(£fenwickcom

FENWICK & WEST LLP

3 Silicon Valley Center

801 California Street

4 Mountain View, CA 94041

Telephone: (650) 988-8500

5 Facsimile: (650) 938-5200

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

INORMATICA CORPORATION

7

TOWNSEND AN TOWNSEND AN CREW LLP

8 DANIEL J. FURISS (State BarNo. 73531), djfurniss(£townsend.com

JOSEPH A. GRECO (State Bar No. 104476),jagreco(£townsend.com

9 IAN L. SAFFER (pro hac vice), ilsaffer(£townsend. com

ROBERT D. TADLOCK (State Bar No. 238479), rdtadlock(£townsend.com

10 379 Lytton Avenue

Palo Alto, California 94301

11 Telephone: (650) 326-2400

Facsimile: (650) 326-2422

12

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

13 BUSINSS OBJECTS DATA INTEGRATION, INC.

14 UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN 15 SAN FRACISCO DIVISION

16

INORMATICA CORPORATION, a

17 Delaware corporation,

Case No. C 02-03378 JSW

18 Plaintiff,

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED)

ORDER ON REPRESENTATIVE

CLAIMS 19 v.

20 BUSINSS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC., formerly known as

21 ACTA TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware

corporation,

22

23

24 AN RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

Defendant.

25

26 As stated in the parties' Second Joint Status Report on Representative Claims, filed on June 26,

27 2006, the parties have agreed to a set of representative claims as described below. The char below

28 lists the representative claims in the left colum and the corresponding claim(s) they each represent in

STIPULA nON AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ON REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS

CASE NO. C 02-03378 JSW

1

Case 3:02-cv-03378-JSW Document 230 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 232 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 3
1 the right colum. Some claims do not represent any other claim(s), and, therefore, the right colum is

2 intentionally left blan.

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

'670 Patent

Claim Represents these claims

1

8 9, 10, 11,20,21,22, and 23

12 24

15 13, 25, and 27

18 2,3,4, 16, and 28

31 30, 33, 34, 35, 39, and 50

'990 Patent

Claim Represents these claims

1

4

5

8

9 12 and 13

'775 Patent

Claim Represents these claims

11 1 and 9

5 4 and 6

7 12 and 13

'374 Patent

Claim I Represents these claims

7 I

The paries agree that (1) if a representative claim is found infrnged and valid, then the claims

it represents shall be deemed infrnged and valid, and (2) if a representative claim is found not

infrnged and/or invalid, then the claims it represents shall be deemed not infrnged and/or invalid.

Proof of infrngement, noninfrngement, validity, or invalidity of a representative claim shall be

deemed suffcient for that claim's represented claim(s). The parties agree that the selection of

representative claims does not preclude BODI rrom asserting a defense of inequitable conduct based

on representative or represented claims.

The listed representative claims wil stand for puroses of summary judgment and triaL. The

parties' stipulation on representative claims is stated in full herein. If a disagreement arses over the

effect or application ofthis stipulation, it will be resolved by subsequent agreement of the parties or by

the Cour.

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ON REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS

CASE NO. C 02-03378 JSW

2

Case 3:02-cv-03378-JSW Document 230 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 232 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 3
1 Summar Judgment Hearing and Briefing Schedule. The parties have discussed counsel's

2 scheduling conflcts over the next few months and respectfully request the following: (1) the Court

3 schedule the hearng of sumar judgment motions and the next Case Management Conference on

4 any of the following dates: September 8, 22, or 29,2006, or thereafter; and (2) the Cour allow three

5 weeks for sumary judgment opposition papers to be fied (after filing of the motions) and two weeks

6 for reply papers to be filed (after fiing of the oppositions).

7

8 SO STIPULATED.

9

10 Dated: July 7,2006

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

FENWICK & WEST LLP

By: s/Daren E. Donnelly

Daren E. Donnelly

Attorneys for Plaintiff

INORMATICA CORPORATION

TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP

By: sf Joseph A. Greco

Joseph A. Greco

Attorneys for Defendant

BUSINSS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

24 Dated: July _, 2006

25

26

27

28

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNTED STATES DISTRICT JUGE

STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER ON REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS

CASE NO. C 02-03378 JSW

3

Case 3:02-cv-03378-JSW Document 230 Filed 07/07/2006 Page 3 of 4

Pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. The parties may each file a motion for summary judgment 

by no later than August 4, 2006. The opposition and reply briefs to such motions may be filed no later 

than August 25, 2006 and September 8, 2006, respectively. The Court HEREBY SCHEDULES the 

hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment for September 29, 2006 at 9 a.m.

17

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 232 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 3