Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-03378-13/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

C-02-3378 BRIEFING ORDER Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INFORMATICA CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BUSINESS OBJECTS DATA

INTEGRATION, INC.

(Formerly ACTA TECHNOLOGY, INC.),

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 02-3378 JSW (JL)

E-FILING

BRIEFING ORDER

(For Docket # 187)

Introduction

Informatica Corporation (“Informatica”) is suing Business Objects Data Integration,

Inc. (“BODI”, formerly Acta Technology) for patent infringement.

All discovery in this case has been referred by the district court (Hon. Jeffrey S.

White) as provided by 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Civil Local Rule 72. The district court on April

18 granted the parties’ stipulation re damages, expert reports and the discovery cut-off.

Fact discovery closes June 5, 2006. 

Discovery Dispute

This Court received the parties’ joint letter brief arguing the merits of their positions

on a discovery dispute. They disagree on the scope of any waiver of the attorney-client

privilege and the work product doctrine resulting from BODI’s assertion of the advice of

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 194 Filed 04/19/06 Page 1 of 3
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

C-02-3378 BRIEFING ORDER Page 2 of 3

counsel defense and the additional wrinkle that one of the attorneys who rendered an

opinion on infringement is a member of the firm which represents BODI in this litigation.

Informatica asks this Court to compel BODI to include all responsive attorney-client

communications and work product regarding its non-infringement contentions in response

to Interrogatory No. 3, and supplement all discovery responses to include responsive

attorney-client communications and work product. Furthermore, Informatica asks the Court

to order the Townsend firm and attorney Philip H. Albert to produce all attorney-client

communications and attorney work product regarding infringement or non-infringement of

the patents-in-suit in response to the subpoenas issued by Informatica.

In its portion of the letter brief, BODI “respectfully requests that it be allowed full

briefing on the merits if the Court were to consider granting Informatica’s motion in whole or

in part.” (Letter brief at pages 3 and 4) 

Order

This Court does indeed consider granting Informatica’s motion at least in part and

hereby orders the parties to brief the issue of the existence and scope of the waiver of both

attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine, particularly in light of the following:

Akeva L.L.C. v Mizuno Corporation, 243 F. Supp. 2d 418 (M.D.N.C. 2003);

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., 206 F.R.D.

396 (D.Del. 2002);

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 224 F.R.D. 98 (S.D.N.Y. 2004);

David Hricik, How Things Snowball: The Ethical Responsibilities and Liability Risks

Arising from Representing a Single Client in Multiple Patent-related Representations,

Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, Spring 2005, 18 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 421.

BODI shall file its brief of no more than ten pages within two weeks of the e-filing of

this order and Informatica shall file its response of no more than ten pages within ten days

of receipt of BODI’s brief. The Court will then take the matter under submission.

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 194 Filed 04/19/06 Page 2 of 3
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

C-02-3378 BRIEFING ORDER Page 3 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2006

__________________________________

JAMES LARSON

 Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-03378-EDL Document 194 Filed 04/19/06 Page 3 of 3