Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 576 Filed 09/09/11 Page 1 of 3 PageiD #: 47897
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE INC., et al.,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC. and SAP AG,
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 2:07-CV-153 CE
`
`FINAL JUDGMENT
`
`This case was tried to a jury from August 17, 2009 to August 26, 2009. At the close of
`
`the evidence, the jury found that defendants SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG (collectively,
`
`"SAP") directly infringed claims 26, 28, and 29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 B2 (the '"350
`
`Patent") and claims 31, 35, and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 5,878,400 (the '"400 Patent). The jury
`
`also found that SAP induced and contributed to the infringement of claim 29 of the '350 Patent.
`
`Finally, the jury found that the asserted claims of the '350 and '400 Patents were not invalid for
`
`failure to satisfy the best mode requirement.
`
`The Court conducted a bench trial on April 27, 2010, on SAP's claim of inequitable
`
`conduct. On December 21, 2010, the Court found that SAP had not met its burden of proving
`
`inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence and that the '400 and '350 Patents are
`
`enforceable. The Court denied SAP's affirmative defense and counterclaim of inequitable
`
`conduct.
`
`On December 21, 2010, the Court granted SAP's motion for judgment as a matter oflaw
`
`with regard to the jury's finding of direct infringement of the claims of the '400 Patent. The
`
`Court denied SAP's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to direct infringement of the
`
`VERSATA EXHffiiT 2092
`SAP v. VERSATA
`CASE CBM2012-00001
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 576 Filed 09/09/11 Page 2 of 3 PageiD #: 47898
`
`asserted claims of the '350 Patent and indirect infringement of claim 29 of the '350 Patent. On
`
`January 6, 2011, the Court granted SAP a new trial on damages.
`
`On May 6, 2010, SAP modified its infringing products. The issues of damages and
`
`infringement with regard to SAP's modified infringing products were tried to a jury from May 9,
`
`2011 to May 12, 2011. After the close of evidence, the jury found that SAP, by way of its
`
`modified infringing products, directly infringed claims 26, 28, and 29 of the '350 Patent, and
`
`induced and contributed to the infringement of claim 29 of the '350 Patent. The jury awarded
`
`Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc., Versata Development Group, and Versata Computer Industry
`
`Solutions, Inc. (collectively "Versata") $260,000,000.00 as lost profits caused by SAP's
`
`infringement and $85,000,000.00 as reasonable royalty damages. The Court subsequently
`
`determined that the jury award should be reduced by $16,345,194.00 because there was not a
`
`sufficient evidentiary basis to find that SAP had constructive notice of the '350 patent from the
`
`time it issued on April 22, 2003, until Versata began marking its products on September 25,
`
`2003. It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Versata have and recover
`
`from SAP the sum of Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Million, Six Hundred Fifty-Four Thousand,
`
`Eight Hundred Six Dollars ($328,654,806), representing the reduction of the amount of actual
`
`damages found by the jury.
`
`The Court awards an additional Sixty-Three Million, Fifty-Seven Thousand, Two
`
`Hundred Thirty Dollars ($63,057,230) in pre-judgment interest. In calculating the pre-judgment
`
`interest, the Court deems that the damage award is what would have been payable to Versata on
`
`the date that SAP had constructive notice of the '350 patent, September 25, 2003. The Court
`
`calculates the pre-judgment interest rate consistent with the average of the ninety (90) day
`
`commercial paper rate, annualized using a 360-day year or bank interest, as established by the
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:07-cv-00153-CE Document 576 Filed 09/09/11 Page 3 of 3 PageiD #: 47899
`
`Federal Reserve Board, and uses this rate compounded on a yearly basis for the time period from
`
`September 25, 2003 to the date of judgment to calculate the pre-judgment interest award.
`
`V ersata is the prevailing party in this litigation and the Court awards costs to the V ersata as the
`
`prevailing party. The judgment shall bear interest at the lawful federal rate.
`
`It is this Court's intention to resolve all issues in this case before the undersigned steps
`
`down from the bench on September 30, 2011. Any party who wishes to file post-judgment
`
`briefing must do so within 7 days of the entry of this judgment. Responses must be filed within
`
`5 days of the initial filing. The Court finds that this shortened period is more than adequate
`
`given the extensive briefing on these issues. Finally, the Court reminds the parties that all
`
`motions must be filed within the page limits prescribed by the local rules, and the Court will not
`
`entertain any motions for extensions of page limits or time absent a showing of good cause (and
`
`the fact that the motion is unopposed or agreed by the opposing party does not necessarily mean
`
`good cause). And to be clear, the parties may not file multiple motions to subvert the thirty-page
`
`limit.
`
`This is a FINAL JUDGMENT. All relief not expressly granted is DENIED. All pending
`
`motions are DENIED, except those seeking to exceed page limits and motions previously ruled
`
`on by the Court. Any pending motions to exceed the page limitation of the local rules of this
`
`court are GRANTED, as the court has considered all of the parties' submissions.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`SIGNED this 9th day of September, 2011.
`
`~~~
`CHARLES EVERING~
`
`UNITED STATES MAGIS RATE JUDGE
`
`3