944 F. Supp. 2d 357
D. Del.2013Background
- Versata filed suit against Callidus alleging patent infringement of the '024, '304, and '326 patents by accused Callidus software, including SPM Suite, TrueComp, and TrueProducer products.
- Plaintiffs are Delaware corporations with principal offices in Austin, Texas; Callidus is a Delaware corporation with principal office in Pleasanton, California.
- Plaintiff asserts infringement occurs through making, using, licensing, selling, offering for sale, and importing the accused software and services in Delaware, elsewhere in the United States.
- Callidus contends the accused activities and maintenance are primarily centered in California, where its servers and majority of personnel are located.
- The court addressed Callidus’s motions to transfer venue to the Northern District of California and to dismiss for failure to state a claim; both motions were denied.
- The court applied § 1404(a) analysis and reviewed the sufficiency of pleadings under Rule 12(b)(6) to determine whether claims of direct and indirect infringement were plausibly pled.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue should be transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). | Versata argues transfer is improper; plaintiff chose a legitimate forum (Delaware) and convenience factors do not justify transfer. | Callidus asserts California is more convenient due to location of development, maintenance, and documents; discovery and witnesses may favor California. | Transfer denied; plaintiffs choice of forum favored and factors did not compellingly favor transfer. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly pleads direct infringement. | Versata identifies accused products as including SPM Suite, TrueComp, and TrueProducer, sufficient under Form 18. | Callidus contends the pleading lacks specific identification of infringing acts. | Pleading of direct infringement is sufficient under Form 18 and Twombly/Iqbal standards. |
| Whether the complaint plausibly pleads indirect infringement (inducement and contributory infringement). | Versata alleges Callidus had knowledge of infringement at least as of filing and that inducement and contributory infringement are plausible. | Callidus argues Pleading is insufficient or lack of particular customers for inducement. | Indirect infringement allegations are facially plausible and adequately pled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (burden on movant to show need for transfer; plaintiff's forum preference respected)
- In re Linkr-A-Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221 (Fed.Cir.2011) (framework for § 1404(a) transfer analysis)
- Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Del. 2012) (recognizes comprehensive transfer analysis framework and private/public factors)
- E.E.O.C. v. Univ. of Pa., 850 F.2d 969 (3d Cir. 1988) (federal comity and transfer analysis considerations)
- Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (origin of infringement standards and § 271 analysis references)
- Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011) (inducement requires culpable conduct and knowledge of infringement)
- Walker Digital LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559 (D. Del. 2012) (pleading of indirect infringement tied to knowledge and continued conduct after notice)
- McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (pleading requirements for direct infringement allegations in patent cases)