Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 432
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-931 (SLR)
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. and
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS RELATING TO
`DEFENDANT CALLIDUS SOFTWARE, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc.
`
`(“Plaintiffs” or “Versata”) submit this Notice of Subsequent Events Relating to Defendant
`
`Callidus Software, Inc.’s (“Callidus”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Failure to
`
`State a Claim (“Motion to Dismiss”) as follows:
`
`On October 16, 2012, Defendant Callidus filed a declaratory judgment action
`
`against Versata in the Northern District of California specifically seeking a declaration that it
`
`does not directly or indirectly infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,958,024 (“the ’024 Patent”), 7,908,304
`
`(“the ’304 Patent”), and 7,904,326 (“the ’326 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). See
`
`Ex. A, Callidus Software, Inc. v. Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`
`Case No. 12-cv-5337-JSC (D.I. 1.) Callidus’s declaratory judgment action in the Northern
`
`District of California is essentially a mirror image of the claims Versata filed against it in this
`
`Court involving the same Patents-in-Suit, same claims of both direct and indirect infringement,
`
`and the same accused products. In its declaratory judgment action, Callidus alleges the existence
`
`of an “actual controversy” and prays for a declaration that it has not “directly infringed,
`
`contributed to the infringement, or induced the infringement of any claim of the [Patents-in-
`
`
`
`1
`
`Ex. 1020 - 1/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24 Filed 11/02/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 433
`
`Suit]. Without limitation, Callidus’s SPM Suite, including Callidus’s TrueComp and
`
`TrueProducer products do not meet each and every limitation, literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, of any claim of the [Patents-in-Suit].” (Id. ¶¶ 9, 11, 15, 19, and Prayer for Relief.)
`
`Callidus has taken the position that an actual and justiciable controversy of
`
`sufficient immediacy exists to support a declaration relating to Versata’s allegations of both
`
`direct and indirect infringement with respect to the accused products specifically identified in
`
`Versata’s Complaint filed in this Court. Accordingly, Callidus’s allegations in its declaratory
`
`judgment action against Versata are in direct conflict with the arguments made in Callidus’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss. Callidus’s ability to allege an actual and justiciable controversy as to direct
`
`and indirect infringement in its California action shows that Versata’s Delaware Complaint
`
`provided Callidus with sufficient notice of Versata’s claims and their basis.
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Julia Heaney
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Julia Heaney (#3052)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@mnat.com
`jheaney@mnat.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc.
`and Versata Development Group, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Alan D. Albright
`Michael Chibib
`Conor M. Civins
`Benjamin L. Bernell
`BRACEWELL & GIULIANI LLP
`111 Congress Avenue, Suite 2300
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 472-7800
`
`November 2, 2012
`6638949.1
`
`
`
`2
`
`Ex. 1020 - 2/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24 Filed 11/02/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 434
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 2, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with
`
`the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification to the registered attorney(s) of
`
`record that the document has been filed and is available for viewing and downloading.
`
`I also certify that copies were caused to be served on November 2, 2012 upon the
`
`following in the manner indicated:
`
`Arthur G. Connolly, III
`CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
`1000 North West Street, Suite 1400
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 757-7300
`aconnolly@connollygallagher.com
`
`
`
`
`BY E-MAIL
`
`Deborah E. Fishman
`Assad H. Rajani
`Michael S. Tonkinson
`DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`700 Hansen Way
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`fishmand@dicksteinshapiro.com
`rajania@dicksteinshapiro.com
`tonkinsonm@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Julia Heaney
`Julia Heaney (#3052)
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1020 - 3/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24-1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 435
`Case 1:12-cv—00931-SLR Document 24-1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 435
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`Ex. 1020 - 4/9
`
`Ex. 1020 - 4/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24-1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 436
`
`•
`
`I Deborah E. Fishman (Cal. Bar No. 197584)
`FishmanD@dicksteinshapiro.com
`2 Assad H. Rajani (Cal. BarNo. 251143)
`RajaniA@dicksteinshapiro.com
`3 DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`700 Hansen Way
`4 Palo Alto, California 94304-1016
`Telephone: (650) 690-9500
`5 Facsimile: (650) 690-9501
`
`6 Attorney for Plaintiff,
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.
`
`7
`
`E-filing
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`.... .®·
`
`·.
`. I
`
`.
`
`Jsc
`538.,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF PATENT NON(cid:173)
`INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC., a Delaware
`corporation, and VERSATA DEVELOPMENT )
`GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation,
`)
`)
`)
`Defendants.
`-------=====~---------)
`
`8
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DICKSTEIN
`SHAPIROLLP
`
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE (NC.'S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT INVALIDITY
`
`Ex. 1020 - 5/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24-1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 437
`
`•
`
`Plaintiff Callidus Software Inc. ("Callidus"), by and through its undersigned counsel, files
`
`this Complaint against Defendants Versata Software, Inc., and Versata Development Group, Inc.,
`
`(collectively "Versata" or "Defendants"), and alleges as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5 §§ I 01, et seq., seeking declaratory judgment that United States Patent Nos. 7,904,326 ("the '326
`
`6 patent"), 7,908,304 ("the '304 patent"), and 7,958,024 ("the '024 patent") are invalid and not
`
`7
`
`infringed by Callidus. The '326 patent is attached as Exhibit A. The '304 patent is attached as
`
`8 Exhibit B. The '024 patent is attached as Exhibit C.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`2.
`
`PlaintiffCallidus Software Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`II business at 6200 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 500, Pleasanton, California 94588. Callidus is a
`
`12 market and technology leader in cloud-based solutions for sales effectiveness sold to companies of
`
`13 every size throughout the world. Callidus's customers use sales effectiveness solutions to optimize
`
`14
`
`investments in sales planning and performance. Callidus's solutions enable businesses to achieve
`
`15 new insights into the principal levers that drive sales force performance so they can repeat sales
`
`16 successes for sustainable, predictable sales growth.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Versata Software, Inc., is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at 6011 West Courtyard Drive, Austin, Texas 78730.
`
`19
`
`Upon information and belief, Versata Software, Inc., may be served with process through its
`
`20
`
`registered agent, Capitol Services, Inc., 1675 South State Street, Suite B, Dover, Delaware 19901.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Versata Development Group, Inc., flk/a
`
`Trilogy Development Group, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its principle place of business at
`
`6011 West Courtyard Drive, Austin, Texas 78730. Upon information and belief, Versata
`
`Development Group, Inc., may be served with process through its registered agent, Capitol Services,
`
`25
`
`Inc., 1675 South State Street, Suite B, Dover, Delaware 19901.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Callidus brings this complaint against Versata pursuant to the patent Jaws of the
`
`28
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code, with a specific remedy sought based upon the Jaws
`
`DICKSTEIN
`SIW'IROLlP
`
`CALLIDUS SOFIWARI!: INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT INVALIDITY
`
`Ex. 1020 - 6/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24-1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 438
`
`•
`
`1 authorizing actions for declaratory judgment in the courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §§ 220 I
`
`2 and 2202.
`
`3
`
`6.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, which arises under the
`
`4 patent laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 2201.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under to 28 U.S.C. § 139I(b) and (c).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Versata. Upon information and belief,
`
`7 Versata conducts business in this District and has sought and is seeking to monetize its patent
`
`8 portfolio, including the '326 patent, the '304 patent, and the '024 patent, in this District.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`EXISTENCE OF AN ACTUAL CONTROVERSY
`
`9.
`
`There is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C.
`
`11 §§ 2201 and 2202. Versata has filed an action for infringement of the '326 patent, the '304 patent,
`
`12 and the '024 patent against Callidus in Case No. I :12-cv-00931 in the District of Delaware.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`COUNT 1: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF THE '326 PATENT
`
`10.
`
`Callidus restates andre-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-9 above and
`
`16
`
`incorporates them by reference.
`
`17
`
`11.
`
`Callidus has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or induced the
`
`18
`
`infringement of any claim of the '326 patent. Without limitation, Callidus's SPM Suite, including
`
`19 Callidus's TrueComp and TrueProducer products do not meet each and every limitation, literally or
`
`20 under the doctrine of equivalents, of any claim of the '326 patent.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`12.
`
`Callidus restates and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-11 above
`
`24 and incorporates them by reference.
`
`25
`
`13.
`
`The claims of the '326 patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`26 statutory requirements for patentability set forth in the United States patent laws, Title 35 of the
`
`27 United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`28
`
`DICKSTEI~
`SHAPIRO LLP
`
`2
`CALLIDUS SOfTWARE INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT lNVALIDIIT
`
`Ex. 1020 - 7/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24-1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 439
`
`•
`
`2
`
`3
`
`COUNT 3: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF THE '304 PATENT
`
`14.
`
`Callidus restates andre-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-13 above
`
`4 and incorporates them by reference.
`
`5
`
`15.
`
`Callidus has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or induced the
`
`6
`
`infringement of any claim of the '304 patent. Without limitation, Callidus's SPM Suite, including
`
`7 Callidus's TrueComp and TrueProducer products do not meet each and every limitation, literally or
`
`8 under the doctrine of equivalents, of any claim of the '304 patent.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`COUNT 4: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE '304 PATENT
`
`16.
`
`Callidus restates andre-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs l-15 above
`
`11 and incorporates them by reference.
`
`12
`
`17.
`
`The claims of the '304 patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`13 statutory requirements for patentability set forth in the United States patent laws, Title 35 of the
`
`14 United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`COUNT 5: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT
`OF THE '024 PATENT
`
`18.
`
`Callidus restates andre-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-17 above
`
`18 and incorporates them by reference.
`
`19
`
`19.
`
`Callidus has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or induced the
`
`20
`
`infringement of any claim of the '024 patent. Without limitation, Callidus's TrueComp product does
`
`21 not meet each and every limitation, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, of any claim of the
`
`22
`
`'024 patent.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`COUNT 6: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE '024 PATENT
`
`20.
`
`Callidus restates andre-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-19 above
`
`25 and incorporates them by reference.
`
`26
`
`21.
`
`The claims of the '024 patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`27 statutory requirements for patentability set forth in the United States patent laws, Title 35 of the
`
`28 United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`DICKSTEIN
`SHAPIRO LlP
`
`3
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT INVALIDITY
`
`Ex. 1020 - 8/9
`
`

`

`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 24-1 Filed 11/02/12 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 440
`
`•
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY
`
`If this matter proceeds to trial, Callidus demands a trial by jury.
`
`PRAYERFORRELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Callidus Software Inc. prays that the Court enter judgment in its
`
`5 favor and against Defendants Versata Software, Inc., and Versata Development Group, Inc. as
`
`6 follows:
`
`7
`
`A.
`
`Declaring that Callidus has not infringed and is not infringing, directly or indirectly,
`
`8 contributorily or by inducement, any claims of the '326, '324, and '024 patents;
`B.
`c
`
`9
`
`10
`
`Declaring that each claim of the '326, '324, and '024 patents is invalid;
`
`Enjoining and restraining Versata, its agents, servants, officers, alter egos, employees,
`
`II attorneys, and those persons in active concert, participation, and privity with Versata, from asserting
`
`12 against Callidus, its agents, vendees, suppliers, customers, or any others in privity with it, that any of
`
`13
`
`them infringe any claim ofVersata's '326, '324, and '024 patents;
`
`14
`
`15
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Adjudging that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`Awarding Callidus its costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in
`
`16 connection with this action; and
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DICKSTEIN
`SHAPIRO LLP
`
`F.
`
`Awarding any such other and further relief in law or in equity to which Callidus may
`
`be justly entitled.
`
`Dated: October 16,2012
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`
`By: tJ.t.A!t 0_ -
`
`Deborah E. Fishman (Cal. Bar No. 197584)
`FishmanD@dicksteinshapiro.com
`Assad H. Rajani (Cal. Bar No. 251143)
`RajaniA@dicksteinshapiro.com
`DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`700 Hansen Way
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1016
`Telephone: (650) 690-9500
`Facsimile: (650) 690-9501
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.
`
`4
`CAL LID US SOFTWARE INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT INVALIDITY
`
`Ex. 1020 - 9/9
`
`