Teradata Corp. et al. v. SAP SE et al.

Trade Secrets Misappropriation, Tying, Other Claims

Northern District

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick

Defense Attorneys: Jones Day, Tharan Gregory Lanier, Nathaniel P. Garrett, Joshua L. Fuchs, Joseph M. Beauchamp, H. Albert Liou, Geoffrey D. Oliver, Catherine T. Zeng, Jason Mcdonell

Plaintiffs Attorneys: Morrison & Foerster Llp, Mark L. Whitaker, David D. Cross, Daniel P. Muino, Bradley S. Lui, Mary Prendergast, Fahd H. Patel, Bryan J. Wilson, Wendy J. Ray, Jack W. Londen

Tharan Gregory Lanier

Years after concluding a joint project, database software maker Teradata Corp. sued its former collaborator, the German business software multinational SAP SE on trade secret misappropriation and antitrust claims.

In November 2021, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick III of San Francisco knocked out most of the plaintiff's case when he granted summary judgment to SAP on the technical trade secret and antitrust tying claims. Currently on appeal are Teradata's business trade secrets claims and SAP's patent counterclaims. The sum sought by Teradata has not been made public. Teradata Corp. v. SAP SE, 3:18-cv-03670 (N.D. Cal., filed June 19, 2018).

SAP's lead counsel, Jones Day partner T. Gregory Lanier, called it an enjoyable case due to its complexity. "There were business issues and legal and technical components--a lot of moving parts."

He added that after Orrick rejected SAP's motion to dismiss, the defense conducted extensive discovery that allowed it to present the judge with decisive facts. Among them: the companies' nondisclosure agreement during its collaboration required that to qualify as confidential material, Teradata had to reduce information to writing and mark it confidential--but it failed to do so and then claimed both parties "understood" it was confidential.

"We eliminated a lot of side issues and disputes to focus on that key fact, and the judge agreed with us," Lanier said.

As for the antitrust aspect of the complaint, Lanier said he and his team chose to contest both the message and the messenger, Teradata's expert. "We attacked the underpinning of the claim, and we used the Daubert process to strike at their economic expert." Regardless of whether the expert's methodology was reliable, its application to the underlying data set could not be trusted to define the relevant antitrust market, the defense team successfully contended.

For the plaintiffs, Morrison & Foerster LLP's Mark L. Whitaker declined to comment.

- John Roemer

Nathaniel P. Garrett

Joshua L. Fuchs