`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. * Civil Docket No.
` * 2:07-CV-153
`VS. * Marshall, Texas
` *
` * August 17, 2009
`SAP AMERICA INC., ET AL * 8:30 A.M.
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE CHAD EVERINGHAM
`UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
`AND A JURY
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
`
`MR. SAM BAXTER
`McKool-Smith
`104 East Houston, Suite 300
`
` Marshall, TX 75670
`
`MR. THEODORE STEVENSON, III
`McKool-Smith
`300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
`Dallas, TX 75201
`
`MR. SCOTT COLE
`MR. STEVEN J. POLLINGER
`MS. LAURIE L. GALLUN
`MR. JOSH W. BUDWIN
`MR. KEVIN M. KNEUPPER
`McKool-Smith
`300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 787011
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE:
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`COURT REPORTERS:
`
`
`
`
`MS. SUSAN SIMMONS, CSR
`MS. JUDITH WERLINGER, CSR
`Official Court Reporters
`100 East Houston, Suite 125
`Marshall, TX 75670
`903/935-3868
`
`(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography,
`transcript produced on CAT system.)
`
`SAP Exhibit 1007
`
`
`
`24
`
`1999, the Patent Office awarded Trilogy this patent,
`
`which we'll call the '400 patent.
`
`Later in April of 2003, the Patent Office
`
`awarded Trilogy a second patent on Mr. Carter's
`
`invention, and we're going to call that the '350 patent.
`
`In awarding these patents, the Patent
`
`Office made a determination that Mr. Carter's invention
`
`was new and was worthy of the United States patent
`
`protection.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Let's talk about what Tom Carter actually
`
`11
`
`invented that solved the pricing problem in a little
`
`12
`
`more detail.
`
`13
`
`Mr. Carter figured out a way to allow
`
`14
`
`users of the software to input the actual hierarchy
`
`15
`
`trees that we saw into the pricing table.
`
`16
`
`Let me show you an example of a pricing
`
`17
`
`table from Mr. Carter's patent. This is Figure 5.
`
`18
`
`And as you can see in this pricing table,
`
`19
`
`the hierarchy is inserted into the table for customers
`
`20
`
`and for products. This is the tree, branches and all.
`
`21
`
`This was counterintuitive. It was
`
`22
`
`actually the opposite of the approach of SAP at the
`
`23
`
`time. SAP required, in 1995, the users to go and break
`
`24
`
`the branches off of the tree for the customers and
`
`25
`
`products, and then create separate tables for each
`
`