throbber
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.
`
` Versata Exh. 2010
` Callidus v. Versata
` CBM2013-00054
`
`
`
`
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`1
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`2
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`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.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`5
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`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.”
`
`
`
`6
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`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.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`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.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`9
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`10
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`11
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`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;
`
`
`
`12
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`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:
`
`
`
`13
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`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.
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exh. 2010 - Page 15 of 15
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket