Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-54/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 RE: EFFECTIVE FILING DATE

OF CLAIM 11 OF ‘775 PATENT

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC.

Defendant.

___________________________________/

The Court has reviewed the parties' further briefing and the authorities cited therein

regarding the effective filing date of Claim 11 in the '775 Patent, which is a continuation-in-part of

the '670 patent. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Claim 11 is entitled to the earlier filing date of

the '670 patent, for the reasons stated by Plaintiff. The specification for both patents is the same,

except that the '775 patent adds extending the method to use in analytical applications, to integrate

data between different systems, and to use with applications acting as source systems. Unlike

Claims 5 and 7, which cover a “computer implemented method for analyzing data in an application,”

Claim 11 covers a “computer implemented method for transforming data.” What is new in the '775

patent relates to the former, not the latter. While Claim 11 employs the new term “system,” one

skilled in the art would not have viewed this as a distinction with a difference, but as an obvious

variation of the original invention, which the inventor had possession of at the earlier date. The

//

//

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 582 Filed 03/08/07 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

patent prosecution history, including the rejection for double patenting leading to the terminal

disclaimer, further supports this conclusion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 8, 2007

______________________________ 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 582 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2