Versata Software, Inc. et al v. SAP America, Inc. et al

Filing 611

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 3/16/2014. (ch, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC.
VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP,
INC., and VERSATA COMPUTER
INDUSTRY SOLUTIONS, INC.
v.
SAP AMERICA, INC., and SAP AG

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:07cv153-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Currently before the Court is Versata’s Motion Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(d), (Dkt. No.
601), filed by Plaintiffs on February 6, 2014. The motion has now been fully briefed and, for the
reasons set forth below, is GRANTED.
Both parties have, in the Court’s view, unnecessarily complicated this motion. While the
litigation has undoubtedly been complex, this motion should not be. The Court begins with the
undeniable premise that a final judgment was entered in this case on September 9, 2011 (Dkt.
No. 576, entitled “Final Judgment”). The Federal Circuit would not have exercised its appellate
jurisdiction without it. As is made clear in its Opinion, the Federal Circuit (Rader, C.J.) affirmed
the judgment in all respects save the permanent injunction, which it found overbroad. The
concluding paragraph of the Opinion notes the affirmance of the “jury’s infringement decision
and concomitant damages awards,” found no reversible error in “the remainder of SAP’s
arguments,” and “vacates part of the trial court’s permanent injunction and remands for futher
proceedings consistent with this opinion.” Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 717 F.3d
1255, 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

1

The Federal Circuit opinion leaves no doubt that the only remaining issue on remand to
this Court was the scope of the permanent injunction. Thus, when Plaintiffs filed their motion to
dismiss all claims for injunctive relief with prejudice on January 21, 2014 (Dkt. No. 595), it was
a simple matter to grant it and thereby moot the sole issue remanded to this Court. That left the
Final Judgment previously entered on September 9, 2011 as the operative document, especially
since all relief awarded therein had been affirmed on appeal, the vacated injunction having been
entered in a separate document. (Dkt. Nos. 573 and 586). Defendants’ argument that the
dismissal of the claims for injunctive relief somehow revives their counterclaim is unpersuasive.
The previous Final Judgment appears to the Court to satisfy the requirements of Rule
.
58(a). However, Rule 58(d) allows any party to request “that the judgment be set out in a
separate document” and Plaintiffs have chosen to make that request. Defendants have not made
any persuasive argument of prejudice. The pendency of Defendants’ motion for relief from the
judgment or a stay (Dkt. No. 598) has no effect on the propriety of entering the prior judgment
on a separate document. Nor does the Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the agreement entered by the
parties concerning payment of the judgment (Dkt. No. 603) have any effect on the Rule 58
issues. Accordingly, the previous Final Judgment entered on September 9, 2011 will “be set out
in a separate document” in accordance with Rule 58(d).
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 16th day of March, 2014.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2