`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Paper 50
`
` Entered: November 24, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. and
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`Patent Owner
`____________
`
`Cases CBM2013-00052 (Patent 7,904,326 B2)
`CBM2013-00053 (Patent 7,958,024 B2)
`CBM2013-00054 (Patent 7,908,304 B2)
`CBM2014-00117 (Patent 7,908,304 B2)
`CBM2014-00118 (Patent 7,958,024 B2)
`____________
`
`
`
`Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and
`KEVIN F. TURNER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`JUDGMENT
`Termination of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.73
`
`
`
`On November 13, 2014, the parties informed the Board that the parties had
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00052, 00053, 00054; CBM2014-00117, 118
`Patents 7,904,326; 7,958,024; 7,908,304
`
`
`settled the proceedings, along with the related District Court case, and that the
`parties sought authorization to file a joint motion to terminate the proceedings. On
`November 19, 2014, and pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 327(b) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.74, the
`parties filed a joint motion to terminate each proceeding. See, e.g., CBM2013-
`00052, Paper 49. In the joint motion, the parties represent that the settlement
`agreement filed is a true copy and resolves all Patent Office and District Court
`proceedings between the parties, including related case Versata Software, Inc. v.
`Callidus Software, Inc., Civ. A. No. 1:12-cv-00931-SLR (D. Del.). Id. at 3.
`According to the motions, no other party has petitioned for a covered business
`method patent review or an inter partes review with respect to any of the involved
`patents and none of the patents are involved in any litigation or any other
`proceeding.
`These covered business method patent reviews were instituted for the
`involved patents based solely upon Petitioner’s assertion that certain claims in the
`involved patents are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. While three of these
`proceedings are in the late stages of trial, no final written decision has been made
`in any proceeding. Based on the facts of these cases, it is appropriate to enter
`judgment.1 Therefore, the joint motions to terminate the proceedings are granted.
`Accordingly, it is
`ORDERED that the parties’ joint request that the settlement agreement be
`treated as business confidential information, to be kept separate from the patent file
`
`
`1 A judgment means a final written decision by the Board, or a termination of a
`
`
`
` 2
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00052, 00053, 00054; CBM2014-00117, 118
`Patents 7,904,326; 7,958,024; 7,908,304
`
`
`is granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the joint motions to terminate the proceedings
`are granted; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that the proceedings are terminated.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`proceeding. 37 C.F.R. § 42.2.
`
`
`
` 3
`
`
`
`CBM2013-00052, 00053, 00054; CBM2014-00117, 118
`Patents 7,904,326; 7,958,024; 7,908,304
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Deborah Fishman
`fishmand@dicksteinshapiro.com
`Jeffrey Miller
`millerj@dicksteinshapiro.com
`Michael Tonkinson
`tonkinsonm@dicksteinshapiro.com
`Assad Rajani
`rajania@dicksteinshpiro.com
`
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`Kent Chambers
`kchambers@tcchlaw.com
`Alisa Lipski
`alipski@azalaw.com
`David O’Brien
`david.obrien.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`John Russell Emerson
`russell.emerson.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`Raghav Bajaj
`raghav.bajaj.ipr@haynesboone.com
`
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`