Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-27/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,

Plaintiff,

 v.

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC., formerly known as

ACTA TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware

Corporation,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 02-03378 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 SEPTEMBER 29, 2006:

The Court RESERVES RULING on the cross-motions for summary judgment filed by

plaintiff Informatica Corporation (“Informatica”) and defendant Business Objects Data

Integration, Inc. (“BODI”), formerly known as Acta Technology, Inc., based on the existence of

genuine issues of material fact. 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 333 Filed 09/28/06 Page 1 of 4
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. Cf. N.D. Civil Local Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the

opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

Each party will have twenty-five minutes to address the following questions:

(1) Does Informatica dispute that BODI cannot be liable for contributory infringement if its

Data Integrator product has a substantial non-infringing use? If so, based on

Informatica’s expert’s testimony that customers may use Data Integrator without creating

Embedded Data Flows (“EDFs”), on what basis, if any, does Informatica contend that

BODI may be liable for contributory infringement as to the ‘670, ‘775, or ‘990 patents?

(2) BODI moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no evidence of direct,

contributory or induced infringement for any of the four patents at issue. In its

opposition to BODI’s motion, Informatica argues and submits evidence regarding direct

and induced infringement of the ‘670 patent. (See Informatica’s Opp. at 25-27). What

evidence in the record supports Informatica’s opposition to BODI’s motion as to direct,

contributory and induced infringement with respect to the ‘775, ‘990, or ‘374 patents?

(3) How does Informatica respond to BODI’s argument that the document Informatica relies

on to show direct infringement, Exhibit 36 to the Schumman Declaration, does not

instruct a reader to select an EDF, reuse it in a new dataflow, or map it to source and

target tables? (See BODI Reply at 12.) What other evidence of direct infringement, if

any, is in the record with respect to the ‘670 patent?

(4) In its reply brief, Informatica argues that “the Transforms, and the EDF’s that make them

reusable, are the components for processing data in the Data Integrator.” (See

Informatica Reply at 4.) 

(a) Has the Court correctly construed Informatica’s argument as what component(s)

process and transform data in the accused product? If so, how does BODI

respond to this argument?

(b) Did Informatica present this theory in its Final Infringement Contentions

(“FICs”)? If so, where? If it did not, why should Informatica not be barred under

the Local Patent Rules from asserting this theory now?

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 333 Filed 09/28/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

(5) How does Informatica respond to BODI’s argument that substantial portions of the

Declaration of David McGoveran in Support of Informatica’s Reply brief raise theories

that were not disclosed in Informatica’s FICs? Why should Informatica not be barred

from relying on theories supported by this declaration that were not disclosed in its

FICs? 

(6) How does Informatica respond to BODI’s argument in its reply brief that Informatica

reads out the claims’ structural limitations of components and/or software binary files

that actually process data with respect to the ‘670, ‘775 and ‘990 patents? (See BODI’s

Reply at 8.)

(7) BODI argues in the alternative that, if the Court finds that the accused product infringes

the ‘670, ‘775 and ‘990 patents, then there is prior art that invalidates these patents. 

(a) In making this argument, how is BODI defining transformation object and

transformation component and exactly what does BODI contend comprise the

transformation object and transformation component in the Data Integrator? Are

these definitions consistent with the Court’s construction of these terms?

(b) In making this argument, exactly what does BODI contend is the definition of

input and output ports and what are the input and output ports in the Data

Integrator? Are these definitions consistent with the Court’s construction of the

term “port”?

(8) Both parties use the term “local repository” in connection with their arguments about the

‘374 patent. This term does appear in the ‘374 patent? How are the parties defining this

term?

(9) BODI relies on CIAS, Inc. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., 424 F. Supp. 2d 678, 687

(S.D.N.Y. 2006) to argue that “comprised of” is a limiting term meaning “including and

limited to.” What authority, if any, does Informatica rely on to argue that “comprised

of” may be construed to mean “including but not limited to”?

(10) Was Informatica’s theory that the local repository and the data mart may be in the same

database raised in its FICs?

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 333 Filed 09/28/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

(11) What, if any, evidence in the record does Informatica rely on to demonstrate that BODI

directly infringes claim 7 of the ‘374 patent?

(12) What, if any, evidence in the record does Informatica rely on to demonstrate that BODI

teaches customers to store both a local repository and a data mart in the same database?

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

Dated: September 28, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 333 Filed 09/28/06 Page 4 of 4