By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. Callidus Software Inc., Civil Action No. 12-931-SLR (D.Del., May 16, 2013), the Court denied the motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California of defendant Callidus Software Inc. (“Callidus”). The Court also denied Callidus’ motion to dismiss. Id. at *10.
A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.
By way of background, Plaintiffs Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc. (collectively, “Versata”) are both Delaware corporations with their principal place of business in Texas. Defendant Callidus is also a Delaware corporation but has its principal place of business in California. Id. at *1. Versata filed this action alleging that certain software products of Callidus, including Callidus’ SPM Suite, and specifically including Callidus’ True Comp and TrueProducer products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,958,024 (“the ‘024 patent”), 7,908,304 (“the ‘304 patent”), and 7,904,326 (“the ‘326 patent”). In opposition to the motion to transfer, Callidus alleged the accused products were primarily designed in California, any continued maintenance is done in California, and its internal servers, which contain the technical documents for the accused products, sales and marketing documents and other company documents, are located in California. Id. at *1-2.
After analyzing the Jumara factors and referring to the analytical framework set forth in Helicos, the Court found that Versata chose a legitimate forum which all parties have in common – their state of incorporation (Delaware), the Jumara convenience factors did not weigh in favor of transfer, and the Jumara public interest factors did not weigh in favor of transfer. Id. at *2-6. Thus, the Court denied Callidus’ motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. Id. at *10.