Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-8/pdf.json

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

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INFORMATICA CORPORATION, a

Delaware Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC., formerly known as

ACTA TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendants.

 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 02-3378 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 17, 2006:

The Court tentatively GRANTS defendant Business Objects Data Integration, Inc.’s

(“BODI”) motion to strike plaintiff Informatica Corporation’s (“Informatica”) newly asserted

claims of infringement. The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and

authorities and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those

pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are

ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance

of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such additional

authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, without argument 

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 167 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

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

or additional briefing. See Civ. L.R. 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral

argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Each party will have fifteen minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Pursuant to the Patent Local Rules, Informatica may amend its Preliminary Infringement

Contentions to assert additional claims may only be made with leave of court upon a

showing of good cause. See Pat. L.R. 3-7; see also LG Electronics Inc. v. Q-Lity

Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 366-67 (N.D. Cal. 2002). How did the Court’s claim

construction order and/or BODI’s production of the most recent versions of its software

in October and November 2005 create good cause to assert additional claims? 

(2) Does Informatica contend that the versions of BODI’s software produced before October

2005 do not infringe the additional claims asserted in Informatica’s Final Infringement

Contentions? If so, specifically how does the software produced in October and

November 2005 differ from the older versions so that the newer versions allegedly

infringe the additional claims and the older versions do not?

(3) Do the parties have anything further to add?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 167 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2