United States District Court, D. Delaware
VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC, and VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs,
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant
For Versata Software Inc., Plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, LEAD ATTORNEY, Julia Heaney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan D. Albright, Conor Civins, PRO HAC VICE; Michael Chibib, PRO HAC VICE, Pro Hac Vice.
For Versata Development Group Inc., Plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, LEAD ATTORNEY, Julia Heaney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
Versata, Inc., Plaintiff, Pro se.
For Callidus Software Inc., Defendant: Arthur G. Connolly, III, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Assad H. Rajani, Deborah E. Fishman, Michael S. Tonkinson, PRO HAC VICE.
For Callidus Software Inc., Counter Claimant: Arthur G. Connolly, III, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Assad H. Rajani; Deborah E. Fishman; Michael S. Tonkinson.
For Versata Development Group Inc., Versata Software Inc., Counter Defendants: Jack B. Blumenfeld, LEAD ATTORNEY, Julia Heaney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
For Versata Software Inc., Counter Defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, LEAD ATTORNEY, Julia Heaney, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Alan D. Albright; Conor Civins; Michael Chibib, Pro Hac Vice.
SUE L. ROBINSON, United States District Judge.
At Wilmington this 8th day of May, 2014, having reviewed defendant's motion to stay pending post-grant review of the patents-in-suit, and the papers filed in connection therewith;  the court issues its decision based on the following reasoning:
Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc. (collectively, " Versata" ) commenced this litigation in July 2012 against defendant Callidus Software, Inc. (" Callidus" ) in July 2012, asserting infringement of the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 1, exs. A-C) These patents are all characterized as " covered business method patents."  Fact discovery is scheduled to conclude on August 22, 2014, with trial scheduled to commence October 19, 2015. (D.I. 33)
2. Callidus filed its administrative challenges to the validity of the patents-in-suit in August 2013, pursuant to the " covered business method" (" CBM" ) patent review process provided for under the AIA § 18(a), 37 C.F.R. 42.300(a). The CBM petitions were filed by Callidus some 13 months after suit was filed and after Callidus had instituted a motion practice which included motions to dismiss and/or transfer. On March 4, 2014, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (" PTAB" ) granted review of the patents-in-suit, finding it more likely than not that the challenged claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and, therefore, unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. At the same time, the PTAB issued scheduling orders for the CBM petitions that set a hearing for October 22, 2014. By statute, the PTAB must issue its final written decision on or before March 4, 2015, which deadline may be extended by the PTAB for up to six ...