Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc.

Facts

Versata (P) brought suit against Callidus (D) on July 19, 2012, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. '326, '304 and '024.  Each concerns the management and tracking of sales information by a financial services company. D asserted three of its own patents against P. It informed Versata that it would file petitions for post-grant review of P's patents at the Patent Office under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method (CBM) Patents. D also informed the district court that it intended to file CBM petitions and to seek a stay of all proceedings in the litigation pending the Patent Office's resolution of those petitions. D filed the CBM petitions challenging every claim of the '326 patent, every independent claim of the '024 and '304 patents, and several dependent claims of those two patents. P had not yet identified its asserted claims in the litigation. D sought a stay of the district court proceedings. The district court ruled that it would wait until the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had made a decision to institute CBM review. P identified its asserted claims in December 2013, some of which were dependent claims of the '024 and '304 patents that D had not included in its first set of CBM petitions. On March 4, 2014, the PTAB instituted CBM review for each patent. D renewed its motion to stay the district court proceedings. D also filed a second set of CBM petitions, challenging the validity of all of the remaining claims of the '024 and '304 patents that it had not raised in the first set of CBM petitions. On May 8, 2014, the district court granted a stay for the '326 patent but denied it as to the '024 and '304 patents. D appealed. Pending appeal, the PTAB instituted CBM review of D's second set of petitions, finding every remaining claim of the '024 and '304 patents more likely than not unpatentable.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.