`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. and
`VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 12-931-SLR
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC.’S
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant CALLIDUS
`
`
`
`SOFTWARE INC. (“Callidus”) answers the Complaint of Plaintiffs VERSATA SOFTWARE,
`
`INC. and VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. (“Plaintiffs”) as follows:
`
`Callidus denies each and every allegation in the Complaint unless expressly admitted
`
`herein.
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`Callidus lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph
`
`1, and on that basis denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Callidus lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the allegations of Paragraph
`
`2, and on that basis denies them.
`
`3.
`
`Callidus admits the allegations of Paragraph 3.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`4.
`
`Callidus admits that the Complaint alleges an action for patent infringement under
`
`the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271, but denies that there has been
`
`infringement.
`
`Ex. 1023 - 1/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 457
`
`5.
`
`Callidus admits that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`6.
`
`Callidus admits that venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(b) and 1400(b). Callidus denies that it has committed any acts of patent infringement in
`
`this, or any, judicial district.
`
`7.
`
`Callidus admits that it is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal
`
`jurisdiction and is a Delaware corporation. Callidus denies that it has committed, induced,
`
`and/or contributed to acts of patent infringement in this judicial district, or any other judicial
`
`district. Callidus lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of
`
`Paragraph 7, and on that basis denies them.
`
`Patents
`
`8.
`
`Callidus admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,958,024 (“the ‘024 patent”) is entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Processing Sales Transaction Data,” and on its face appears to have
`
`issued on June 7, 2011. Callidus admits that Exhibit A of the Complaint purports to be a true
`
`and correct copy of the ‘024 patent. Callidus lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 8, and on that basis denies them.
`
`9.
`
`Callidus admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,908,304 (“the ‘304 patent”) is entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Managing Distributor Information,” and on its face appears to have
`
`issued on March 15, 2011. Callidus admits that Exhibit B of the Complaint purports to be a true
`
`and correct copy of the ‘304 patent. Callidus lacks information sufficient to admit or deny the
`
`remaining allegations of Paragraph 9, and on that basis denies them.
`
`10.
`
`Callidus admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,904,326 (“the ‘326 patent”) is entitled
`
`“Method and Apparatus for Performing Collective Validation of Credential Information,” and on
`
`its face appears to have issued on March 8, 2011. Callidus admits that Exhibit C of the
`
`Ex. 1023 - 2/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 458
`
`Complaint purports to be a true and correct copy of the ‘326 patent. Callidus lacks information
`
`sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10, and on that basis denies
`
`them.
`
`11.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 11.
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of the ‘024 Patent
`
`12.
`
`Callidus incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 11 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 13.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 14.
`
`Callidus admits that it has knowledge of the ‘024 patent as of the date it was
`
`served with a copy of the Complaint. Callidus denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15.
`
`16.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 16.
`
`COUNT II
`Infringement of the ‘304 Patent
`
`17.
`
`Callidus incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 16 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 18.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 19.
`
`Callidus admits that it has knowledge of the ‘304 patent as of the date it was
`
`served with a copy of the Complaint. Callidus denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 20.
`
`21.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 21.
`
`COUNT III
`Infringement of the ‘326 Patent
`
`22.
`
`Callidus incorporates its answers to Paragraphs 1 through 21 as if fully set forth
`
`Ex. 1023 - 3/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 459
`
`herein.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 23.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 24.
`
`Callidus admits that it has knowledge of the ‘326 patent as of the date it was
`
`served with a copy of the Complaint. Callidus denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 25.
`
`26.
`
`Callidus denies the allegations of Paragraph 26.
`
`Response to Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief
`
`Callidus denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any of the relief sought in its prayer or any
`
`relief whatsoever.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Callidus asserts the following affirmative defenses without admitting in any way that
`
`Callidus is liable to Plaintiffs, or that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief whatsoever.
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`(Failure to State a Claim for Infringement)
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for patent infringement under the U.S.
`
`Patent laws including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`(Failure to State a Claim for Past Damages)
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts sufficient to claim any damages prior to the
`
`filing of this action pursuant to the marking and notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`29.
`
`Callidus has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or induced the
`
`infringement of the ‘024 patent, the ‘304 patent, and the ‘326 patent, and is not liable for
`
`infringement thereof either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Ex. 1023 - 4/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 460
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense
`(Invalidity)
`
`30.
`
`Based on information and belief, one or more claims of the ‘024 patent, the ‘304
`
`patent, and the ‘326 patent, are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`Fifth Affirmative Defense
`(No Injunction)
`
`31.
`
`The Complaint and each of the claims therein do not entitle Plaintiffs to
`
`injunctive relief on the grounds that the facts and circumstances do not warrant injunctive relief.
`
`Sixth Affirmative Defense
`(Prosecution History Estoppel and/or Disclaimer)
`
`32.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs’ claims for relief are barred, in whole or in
`
`part, by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel and/or prosecution disclaimer.
`
`Seventh Affirmative Defense
`(Laches, Estoppel, Equitable Estoppel and/or Waiver)
`
`33.
`
`On information and belief, that Plaintiffs’ rights in the ‘024 patent, the ‘304
`
`patent, and the ‘326 patent, are barred, in whole or in part, by one or more of the equitable
`
`doctrines of laches, estoppel, equitable estoppel, and waiver.
`
`Eighth Affirmative Defense
`(Unclean Hands)
`
`34.
`
`On information and belief, that Plaintiffs’ rights in the ‘024 patent, the ‘304
`
`patent, and the ‘326 patent, are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrine of unclean
`
`hands.
`
`Reservation of Defenses
`
`Callidus reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses at law or in equity, that
`
`Ex. 1023 - 5/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 461
`
`may now or in the future be available based on discovery or any other factual investigation
`
`concerning this case.
`
`Demand for Jury Trial
`
`Callidus requests a trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`For its counterclaims against Plaintiffs VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC. and VERSATA
`
`DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC. (hereinafter “Counterclaim Defendants”), Counterclaim
`
`Plaintiff CALLIDUS SOFTWARE INC. (“Callidus”) alleges as follows:
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`Callidus is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of
`
`Delaware, having a principal place of business at 6200 Stoneridge Mall Road, Suite 500,
`
`Pleasanton, California 94588. Callidus is a market and technology leader in cloud-based
`
`solutions for sales effectiveness sold to companies of every size throughout the world.
`
`Callidus’s customers use its sales effectiveness solutions to optimize investments in sales
`
`planning and performance. Callidus’s solutions enable businesses to achieve new insights into
`
`the principal levers that drive their sales force performance so that they can repeat sales success
`
`for sustainable and predictable sales growth.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Versata Software, Inc., is a Delaware corporation
`
`with its principal place of business at 6011 West Courtyard Drive, Austin, Texas 78730. Upon
`
`information and belief, Versata Software, Inc., may be served with process through its registered
`
`agent, Capitol Services, Inc., 1675 South State Street, Suite B, Dover, Delaware 19901.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Versata Development Group, Inc., f/k/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
`
`Ex. 1023 - 6/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 462
`
`Development Group, Inc., may be served with process through its registered agent, Capitol
`
`Services, Inc., 1675 South State Street, Suite B, Dover, Delaware 19901.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for:
`
`a.
`
`declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity under the patent
`
`laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq., with a specific remedy
`
`sought based upon the laws authorizing actions for declaratory judgment
`
`in the courts of the United States, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202; and
`
`b.
`
`patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1, et seq., more particularly 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action, which arises under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202. There
`
`is an actual controversy within the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants have filed an action for infringement of the ‘326, ‘304, and ‘024
`
`patents against Counterclaim Plaintiff Callidus.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1400(b).
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Counterclaim Defendants. Upon
`
`information and belief, Counterclaim Defendants are each Delaware corporations that conduct
`
`business in this District and have sought and are seeking to monetize their patent portfolio,
`
`including the ‘326, ‘304, and ‘024 patents, in this District.
`
`Patents
`
`8.
`
`On July 31, 2001, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
`
`duly and legally issued United States Patent No. 6,269,355 (“the ‘355 patent”), entitled
`
`“Automated Process Guidance System and Method Using Knowledge Management System.”
`
`Ex. 1023 - 7/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 463
`
`Callidus holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘355 patent (a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached hereto as Exhibit A).
`
`9.
`
`On February 1, 2005, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent No.
`
`6,850,924 (“the ‘924 patent”), entitled “Automated Process Guidance System and Method.”
`
`Callidus holds all right, title, and interest in and to the ‘924 patent (a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached hereto as Exhibit B).
`
`10.
`
`On October 29, 2002, the USPTO duly and legally issued United States Patent
`
`No. 6,473,748 (“the ‘748 patent”), entitled “System for Implementing Rules.” Callidus holds all
`
`right, title, and interest in and to the ‘748 patent (a true and correct copy of which is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit C).
`
`COUNT I
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ‘024 Patent)
`
`11.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-10 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`12.
`
`Callidus has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or induced the
`
`infringement of any claim of the ‘024 patent. Without limitation, Callidus’s software, including
`
`Callidus’s TrueComp product, does not meet each and every limitation, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, of any claim of the ‘024 patent.
`
`COUNT II
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘024 Patent)
`
`13.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-12 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`14.
`
`The claims of the ‘024 patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`statutory requirements for patentability set forth in the United States patent laws, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`Ex. 1023 - 8/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 464
`
`COUNT III
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ‘304 Patent)
`
`15.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-14 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`16.
`
`Callidus has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or induced the
`
`infringement of any claim of the ‘304 patent. Without limitation, Callidus’s software, including
`
`Callidus’s SPM Suite and specifically including Callidus’s TrueComp and TrueProducer
`
`products and related services, do not meet each and every limitation, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, of any claim of the ‘304 patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘304 Patent)
`
`17.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-16 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`18.
`
`The claims of the ‘304 patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`statutory requirements for patentability set forth in the United States patent laws, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`COUNT V
`(Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ‘326 Patent)
`
`19.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-18 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`20.
`
`Callidus has not directly infringed, contributed to the infringement, or induced the
`
`infringement of any claim of the ‘326 patent. Without limitation, Callidus’s software, including
`
`Callidus’s SPM Suite and specifically including Callidus’s TrueComp and TrueProducer
`
`products and related services, do not meet each and every limitation, literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents, of any claim of the ‘326 patent.
`
`Ex. 1023 - 9/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 465
`
`COUNT VI
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘326 Patent)
`
`21.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-20 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`22.
`
`The claims of the ‘326 patent are invalid for failing to satisfy one or more of the
`
`statutory requirements for patentability set forth in the United States patent laws, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code, including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112.
`
`COUNT VII
`(Infringement of the ‘355 Patent)
`
`23.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-22 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`24.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries and/or affiliates,
`
`have been and are now directly infringing, and indirectly infringing by way of inducing the
`
`infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the ‘355 patent in the State of
`
`Delaware, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things,
`
`making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, or importing process guidance software,
`
`including Versata’s Business Rules Management System (“BRMS”) software and software
`
`developed for Counterclaim Defendants’ customers using Versata’s BRMS software, including
`
`the Utah Comprehensive Unemployment Benefits System (“CUBS”), and related services,
`
`covered by one or more claims of the ‘355 patent, all to the injury of Callidus.
`
`25.
`
`By making, using, selling, licensing, and/or offering to sell within the United
`
`States, and/or importing into the United States their products, Counterclaim Defendants have
`
`directly infringed, and will continue to directly infringe, one or more claims of the ‘355 patent
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`26.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants have, at least as of the date of the filing of this
`
`Ex. 1023 - 10/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 466
`
`counterclaim, knowledge of the ‘355 patent, knowledge that its actions as described above are
`
`directly infringing, inducing and/or contributing to the infringement of the ‘355 patent, and
`
`knowledge that its software products and services, including BRMS and CUBS, lack substantial
`
`non-infringing uses.
`
`COUNT VIII
`(Infringement of the ‘924 Patent)
`
`27.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-26 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`28.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries and/or affiliates,
`
`have been and are now directly infringing, and indirectly infringing by way of inducing the
`
`infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the ‘924 patent in the State of
`
`Delaware, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things,
`
`making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, or importing process guidance software,
`
`including Versata’s BRMS software and software developed for Counterclaim Defendants’
`
`customers using Versata’s BRMS software, including the Utah CUBS, and related services,
`
`covered by one or more claims of the ‘924 patent, all to the injury of Callidus.
`
`29.
`
`By making, using, selling, licensing, and/or offering to sell within the United
`
`States, and/or importing into the United States their products, Counterclaim Defendants have
`
`directly infringed, and will continue to directly infringe, one or more claims of the ‘924 patent
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`30.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants have, at least as of the date of the filing of this
`
`counterclaim, knowledge of the ‘924 patent, knowledge that its actions as described above are
`
`directly infringing, inducing and/or contributing to the infringement of the ‘924 patent, and
`
`knowledge that its software products and services, including BRMS and CUBS, lack substantial
`
`Ex. 1023 - 11/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 467
`
`non-infringing uses.
`
`COUNT IX
`(Infringement of the ‘748 Patent)
`
`31.
`
`Callidus incorporates Paragraphs 1-30 of these Counterclaims as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`32.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants, directly or through their subsidiaries and/or affiliates,
`
`have been and are now directly infringing, and indirectly infringing by way of inducing the
`
`infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of, the ‘748 patent in the State of
`
`Delaware, in this judicial district, and elsewhere within the United States by, among other things,
`
`making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, or importing business rules software,
`
`including Versata’s BRMS software and software developed for Counterclaim Defendants’
`
`customers using Versata’s BRMS software, and related services, covered by one or more claims
`
`of the ‘748 patent, all to the injury of Callidus.
`
`33.
`
`By making, using, selling, licensing, and/or offering to sell within the United
`
`States, and/or importing into the United States their products, Counterclaim Defendants have
`
`directly infringed, and will continue to directly infringe, one or more claims of the ‘748 patent
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`34.
`
`Counterclaim Defendants have, at least as of the date of the filing of this
`
`complaint, knowledge of the ‘748 patent, knowledge that its actions as described above are
`
`directly infringing, inducing and/or contributing to the infringement of the ‘748 patent, and
`
`knowledge that its software products and services, including BRMS, lack substantial non-
`
`infringing uses.
`
`Prayer for Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Callidus respectfully requests that
`
`Ex. 1023 - 12/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 468
`
`this Court enter an order:
`
`A.
`
`Dismissing the claims in the Complaint with prejudice and finding that Plaintiffs
`
`take nothing by them;
`
`B.
`
`Declaring that Callidus has not infringed, contributed to the infringement of,
`
`induced the infringement of, or committed any other act constituting infringement, as set forth in
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271, or any other provision of the U.S. Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., of, any
`
`claim of the ‘326, ‘304, and/or ‘024 patents;
`
`C.
`
`Declaring that each claim of the ‘326, ‘304, and ‘024 patents are invalid, void and
`
`without force and effect;
`
`D.
`
`Enjoining and restraining Plaintiffs, their agents, servants, officers, alter egos,
`
`employees, attorneys, and those persons in active concert, participation, and privity with
`
`Plaintiffs, from asserting against Callidus, its agents, vendees, suppliers, customers, or any others
`
`in privity with it, that any of them infringe any claim of Plaintiff’s ‘326, ‘304, and ‘024 patents;
`
`E.
`
`Enter judgment that Counterclaim Defendants have infringed, directly and
`
`indirectly, by way of inducing the infringement of and/or contributing to the infringement of,
`
`Callidus’s ‘355, ‘924 and ‘748 patents;
`
`F.
`
`Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining Counterclaim
`
`Defendants and its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees, affiliates, divisions, branches,
`
`subsidiaries, and parents from infringing, inducing the infringement of, or contributing to the
`
`infringement of Callidus’s ‘355, ‘924 and ‘748 patents;
`
`G.
`
`Order and award Callidus its actual damages for Counterclaim Defendants’
`
`infringement of Callidus’s ‘355, ‘924 and ‘748 patents, together with interest (both pre- and post-
`
`judgment), as fixed by this Court under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`Ex. 1023 - 13/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 469
`
`H.
`
`Order an accounting be made to establish the amount of gains, profits and
`
`advantages which Counterclaim Defendants have made, received, or may receive as a result of
`
`their acts of infringement;
`
`I.
`
`J.
`
`Adjudging that this is an exceptional case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`Awarding Callidus its costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`incurred in connection with this action; and
`
`K.
`
`Awarding any such other and further relief in law or in equity to which Callidus
`
`may be justly entitled.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Callidus hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right pursuant to Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 38 and Civil L.R. 38.1.
`
`
`
`Dated: May 30, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Arthur G. Connolly, III
`
`By:
`
`Ex. 1023 - 14/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28 Filed 05/30/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 470
`
`Arthur G. Connolly , III (#2667)
`CONNOLLY GALLAGHER LLP
`The Brandywine Building
`1000 West Street, Suite 1400
`P.O. Box 2207
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel. 302-888-6318
`aconnolly@connollygallagher.com
`
`Deborah E. Fishman (pro hac vice)
`Assad H. Rajani (pro hac vice)
`Michael S. Tonkinson (pro hac vice)
`DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
`1841 Page Mill Rd. Ste. 150
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Phone: (650) 690-9500
`Fax: (650) 690-9501
`fishmand@dicksteinshapiro.com
`rajania@dicksteinshapiro.com
`tonkinsonm@dicksteinshapiro.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim
`Plaintiff Callidus Software Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. 1023 - 15/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 471
`
`Exhibit A
`
`Ex. 1023 - 16/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 472
`111111
`1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
`US006269355Bl
`US 6,269,355 BI
`Jui. 31, 2001
`
`(12) United States Patent
`Grimse et ai.
`
`(10) Patent No.:
`(45) Date of Patent:
`
`(54) AUTOMATED PROCESS GUIDANCE
`SYSTEM AND METHOD USING
`KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
`
`(75)
`
`Inventors: Mark Grimse, San Jose; Thomas A.
`King, Danville; Pat Neargarder,
`Saratoga, all of CA (US); Michael Ohr,
`Karlsruhe (DE)
`
`(73) Assignee: Kadiri, Inc., Burlingame, CA (US)
`
`( *) Notice:
`
`Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this
`patent is extended or adjusted under 35
`U.S.c. 154(b) by 0 days.
`
`(21) Appl. No.: 09/292,653
`
`(22) Filed:
`
`Apr. 15, 1999
`
`(51)
`
`Int. CI? ............................ G06F 17/00; G06F 17/60;
`G06F 7/00
`(52) U.S. CI. ................................. 706/46; 706/45; 705/32;
`707/102
`(58) Field of Search .................................. 706/47, 46, 45;
`705/32; 707/102
`
`(56)
`
`References Cited
`
`U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
`5,103,498 * 4/1992 Lanier et al.
`.......................... 706/58
`5,220,500 * 6/1993 Baird et al. ............................ 705/36
`5,485,544 * 1/1996 Nonaka et al.
`........................ 706/11
`5,701,400 * 12/1997 Almado .................................. 706/45
`5,787,234 * 7/1998 Molloy ................................... 706/46
`5,787,416 * 7/1998 Tabb et al. ............................... 707/2
`5,809,317 * 9/1998 Kogan et al. ........................ 707/501
`5,818,435 * 10/1998 Kozuka et al.
`...................... 345/302
`5,933,140 * 8/1999 Strahorn et al. ..................... 345/338
`6,081,786 * 7/2000 Barry et al. .............................. 705/3
`
`6,101,488 * 8/2000 Hayashi et al. ........................ 706/45
`
`OTHER PUBLICATIONS
`
`Zhang et ai, "Multimedia Courseware over the Internet",
`IEEE Candain, Conference on Electrical and Computing
`Engineering, May 1998.*
`Rosis et ai, "Adaptive Interaction with Knowledge-Based
`System" ACM Proceedings of the Workshop on Advance
`Visual Interfaces, Jun. 1994.*
`Schlatter, U.R., "Real-Time Knowledge-Based Support for
`Air Traffic Management", IEEE Expert, Jun. 1994. *
`Microsoft Press, Computer Dictionary: Third Edition 41,
`239-40,372,479, 1997.*
`ForeFront, Inc., ForeHelp: Help-Authoring System for
`Microsoft Windows 20-26, 99-108, 111-19, 167-71,
`1994.*
`
`* cited by examiner
`
`Primary Examiner-George B. Davis
`(74) Attorney, Agent, or Firm-Gray Cary Ware &
`Freidenrich LLP
`
`(57)
`
`ABSTRACT
`
`A system and method for guiding a user through a complex
`process having a plurality of steps is provided. The system
`permits a user with little or no knowledge of the process to
`complete the process. The guidance system includes a
`logical structure which models the process steps within the
`process and guidance pages which provide the user with
`additional information about how to proceed through the
`process. The guidance pages have one or more page frag(cid:173)
`ments and each page fragment is dynamically generated
`based on certain preconditions so that the guidance pages are
`easily customizable.
`
`10 Claims, 19 Drawing Sheets
`
`40
`y----/
`
`42
`~
`APPLICATION SERVER
`
`JNTRANET
`,
`)
`44
`
`~
`
`5~
`GUIDANCE
`APPLICATION
`J
`
`46
`~
`
`CLIENT
`
`48
`
`50
`"\.
`
`52
`
`---....,
`r-
`----~
`' -
`DECISIS
`DATABASE KNOWLEDGE
`PROCESS GUIDANCE SYSTE M
`-- MANAGEMENT
`
`SYSTEM
`
`DATABASE SERVERS
`
`Ex. 1023 - 17/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 473
`
`u.s. Patent
`
`Jui. 31, 2001
`
`Sheet 1 of 19
`
`US 6,269,355 BI
`
`36
`
`"
`"
`
`"
`"
`
`.....
`"
`
`" I'
`
`~
`
`I'
`
`...L
`I'
`
`"\
`
`SERVER
`
`FIGURE 1
`
`CLIENT #1
`
`CLIENT #2
`
`34
`
`CLIENT #N
`
`../
`
`42
`
`APPLICATION SERVER
`
`54
`
`40
`~
`46
`
`CLIENT
`
`48
`
`GUIDANCE
`APPLICATION
`
`44
`
`50
`
`DATABASE
`
`DECISIS
`KNOVVLEDGE
`MANAGEMENT
`SYSTEM
`
`DATABASE SERVERS
`
`52
`
`FIGURE 2
`PROCESS GUIDANCE SYSTEM
`
`Ex. 1023 - 18/92
`
`
`
`I--"
`~
`(I)
`(I)
`~
`\0
`CJ\
`N
`-..CJ\
`rJ'l
`
`e
`
`'""'"
`\C
`0 ....,
`N
`~ .....
`'JJ. =-~
`
`'""'"
`C
`N c
`'""'" ~
`~
`~ = :-
`
`~ = .....
`~ .....
`~
`•
`rJl
`d •
`
`70
`
`70
`
`/ I-I
`
`k
`
`I
`
`FIGURE 3
`
`70
`
`SICK
`PAID UNPAID AUTHORIZED \ UNAUTHORIZED
`
`LEAVE
`
`SICK
`
`LEAVE
`
`;i§J
`
`78
`
`;l 178
`
`78
`
`\
`
`78
`
`70 70
`
`\
`
`LANGUAGE DRESS FIGHT
`
`70 ATTENDANCE
`
`l'
`
`'-----,
`70
`
`Y STANDARD? N
`
`AWARE OF
`
`PERFORMANCE
`
`77
`
`r
`I ~ 68
`
`66
`
`.J
`70
`
`...----.
`
`\ -( START ')
`62
`
`70
`
`I \\ CONOUCT-,o
`
`I
`
`I
`
`70
`
`70
`
`64
`
`60~
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 474
`
`Ex. 1023 - 19/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 475
`
`u.s. Patent
`
`Jui. 31, 2001
`
`Sheet 3 of 19
`
`US 6,269,355 BI
`
`8
`0
`
`8
`2
`
`~O
`
`LAW ON
`NOTICE
`I" - ~F - EMPLOY;E - PART - OF -
`- I 88
`~COLLECTIVE _ 8ARG~N~~ CONTRACT,~O
`
`~ ~_UNION REPRESENTATIVE !RESENT r
`
`8 4
`
`HYPERLINK TO POLICY
`
`8 6
`~
`
`FIGURE 4
`
`FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
`102
`100
`~----------W-H-O-~-O-W-----------~
`>1250
`SICK
`LONG
`
`101
`
`FED
`LAW
`
`STATE
`LAW
`
`COMPANY
`POLICY
`
`COLLECTIVE
`BARGAINING
`CONTRACT
`
`X-NO
`
`X
`
`X-NO
`
`X-ALLOW
`
`MOST -----------~> LEAST
`DISCRIMINATORY
`DISCRIMINATORY
`
`FIGURE 5
`
`Ex. 1023 - 20/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 476
`
`u.s. Patent
`
`Jui. 31, 2001
`
`Sheet 4 of 19
`
`US 6,269,355 BI
`
`ATTENDANCE MANAGEMENT
`SAMPLE SCREEN #1
`
`120
`
`122
`
`ATTENDANCE MANAGEMENT
`
`~
`1~
`
`cj:GORIZE Use this application to develop a corrective action plan for an
`124
`O;:;STlGATE John Smith
`126
`~NPLAN
`128
`c:J:RT
`
`employee with a high absence rate.
`
`Select "Help" for information on how to run this application.
`
`1-23678
`
`7-234
`
`50 hours YTD
`12 hours PTD
`
`Select path:
`
`Investigate
`
`Same disposition as last time
`
`Not a problem
`
`Not an employee
`
`132
`
`Help
`{AMH 0001}
`
`Look-up
`
`Guidance
`{AMG 0001}
`
`13~
`
`The employee's recent absences have been:
`
`Paid Sick Leave
`
`Unpaid Sick Leave
`
`Other Approved Leave
`
`Unapproved Leave
`
`136
`
`Guidance
`{AMG 0002}
`
`Guidance
`{AMG 0003}
`
`If you are unsure about what kinds of leaves are considered
`"approved," select Guidance for a list of leave types.
`
`If you do not know the reason the employee has been absent so
`much, select "Guidance" for help in talking to the employee to
`find out.
`
`138
`
`B
`
`142
`---_/
`c:
`
`Continue
`
`FIGURE 6
`
`Ex. 1023 - 21/92
`
`
`
`Case 1:12-cv-00931-SLR Document 28-1 Filed 05/30/13 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 477
`
`u.s. Patent
`
`Jui. 31, 2001
`
`Sheet 5 of 19
`
`US 6,269,355 BI
`
`150
`"---'
`151
`154
`
`Not Always
`
`Attendance Management Page 1
`Investigate Paid Sick Leave Absence(s)
`Guidance: List of
`notice requirements.
`{AMG 0004}
`"'---152
`Yes
`
`Has the employee provided adequate notice for the
`paid sick leave absence(s)?
`
`Failure to provide adequate
`notice is a conduct issue that
`may be handled with
`Progressive Discipline -
`Attendance Conduct ..
`
`Guidance: Treat conduct issues
`separately (no caliino show, etc.J
`IAMG oo05)
`
`156
`
`158 Not Always
`
`157
`Guidance: List of sick leave
`~
`certification requirements.
`{AMG 0006}
`
`No
`
`Guidance: {AMG 000l}
`
`Failure to provide proper
`certification is a conduct
`issue that may be handled
`with Progressive Discipline -
`Attendance Conduct.. See
`Guidance for more details.
`
`Hot Advice: See Guidance for
`input on how to make this
`judgement or how to interview
`the employee on this.
`Guidance: How to forecast
`/
`161 .-/L-a_bs_e_n_ce_ra_t_e._IA_M_G_0_0_0_8_1 ----'
`
`Has the employee provided proper
`certification for the absence(s)?
`
`Yes
`
`160
`
`In your judgement, will the
`employee continue to have a
`high absence rate?
`
`