Teradata Corporation et al v. SAP SE et al

Filing 241

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero regarding 239 Motion for Issuance of Letters of Request. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/7/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TERADATA CORPORATION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

SAP SE, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO
ISSUE LETTERS OF REQUEST

v.

9
10

Case No. 18-cv-03670-WHO (JCS)

12
13

Plaintiffs Teradata Corporation; Teradata US, Inc.; and Teradata Operations, Inc.

14

(collectively, “Teradata”) ask the Court to issue letters of request under the Hague Convention to

15

take discovery in Germany from non-party Infolytics AG and certain of its employees.

16

Defendants SAP SE; SAP of America, Inc.; and SAP Labs, LLC (collectively, “SAP”) seek

17

changes to the proposed letters of request, arguing that Teradata’s synopsis of the case is biased

18

and that SAP should be entitled to equal time in any depositions taken pursuant to the letters.

19

“[B]ecause the letter rogatory constitutes a request from the Court for assistance, not from

20

a party, care should be taken to ensure that the synopsis of the case is not unduly argumentative, or

21

state or suggest that the Court has reached factual conclusions at this stage of the proceedings.”

22

Fid. Int’l Currency Advisor A Fund, LLC v. United States, Civ. Nos. 05-40151-FDS & 06-40130-

23

FDS, 2007 WL 9412764, at *4 (D. Mass. May 23, 2007). SAP is correct that Teradata’s synopsis

24

fails to provide a neutral statement of the case. The Court is concerned, however, that SAP’s

25

proposed revisions tend to overcorrect and tilt the scale in SAP’s favor. Barring agreement by the

26

parties to some other language, the Court will therefore issue letters of request with the following

27

synopsis:

28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

(b) Summary of the Complaint/Counterclaims. Teradata’s Complaint
alleges claims for (i) trade secret misappropriation under U.S. Federal
Law (18 U.S.C. § 1836, et seq.); (ii) trade secret misappropriation
under California State Law (Cal. Civil Code § 3426, et seq.);
(iii) copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501; (iv) Unlawful
Tying under 15 U.S.C. §ֻ§ 1, 14; and (v) attempted monopolization
under 15 U.S.C. § 2 through SAP’s alleged anticompetitive conduct
directed at Teradata and alleged misuse of Teradata’s intellectual
property. SAP’s Answer denies these allegations, and SAP’s
Counterclaims allege claims for infringement of five SAP patents
under 35 U.S.C. § 271 through Teradata’s alleged use of SAP’s
intellectual property.
The case concerns enterprise software. The parties entered a joint
venture in 2008 that allowed SAP’s “Business Warehouse” product
to use Teradata’s “Teradata Database” product. In 2011, SAP released
its own “HANA” product that competed with Teradata’s product.
Teradata contends that SAP used Teradata’s intellectual property
obtained through the joint venture to develop SAP’s HANA product,
and that SAP has sought to coerce customers to use the HANA
product rather than the Teradata Database product in ways that violate
United States antitrust laws. SAP contends that the Teradata Database
product infringes SAP’s patents.
During the joint venture, SAP contracted with Infolytics AG to
develop software integrating SAP’s Business Warehouse product
with the Teradata Database product. Some Infolytics employees were
given “@sap.com” email addresses, which SAP contends was a
component of those employees’ limited “contractor-user” level of
access to SAP’s network. The Infolytics employees who received
SAP email addresses included Thomas Anhaus and Fekke Fekkes.

17

If the parties agree that any changes or additions to that language are necessary, they may so

18

stipulate, but if the parties cannot reach an agreement as to any changes, the letters of request must

19

include the language above.

20
21

SAP’s request for equal time to cross-examine witnesses during depositions is GRANTED,
and must be included in the letters of request.

22

SAP’s remaining proposed changes to the letters of request are not addressed in the

23

parties’ briefs and appear to be minor. The Court expects that the parties can reach an agreement

24

as to those issues. If the parties cannot reach an agreement as to any non-substantive language,

25

Teradata’s preference as the requesting party will control.

26

The parties are ORDERED to meet and confer telephonically or by other electronic means

27

to resolve any outstanding issues. If all such issues are resolved, Teradata shall file amended

28

proposed letters of request no later than April 14, 2020, and SAP shall concurrently file its
2

1

certification that the proposed letters of request conform to this order. In the unlikely event that

2

any substantive issues remain unresolved, the parties shall file a joint letter brief not exceeding

3

five single-spaced pages by the same date.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 7, 2020
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3