On July 19, 2012, Versata Software, Inc. and Versata Development Group, Inc. (collectively, “Versata”) filed suit against Callidus in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“Delaware District Court”). The suit asserts that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,904,326, 7,908,304 and 7,958,024. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. On May 30, 2013, the Company answered the complaint and filed a counterclaim against Versata in the Delaware District Court. The Company's counterclaim asserts that Versata infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 6,269,355, 6,850,924 and 6,473,748. On August 30, 2013, the Company filed petitions with the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) for covered business method (“CBM”) patent review of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,904,326, 7,908,304 and 7,958,024, which Versata filed responses to on December 12, 2013. The Company also filed a motion with the Delaware District Court on August 30, 2013 to stay the litigation pending completion of the patent review proceedings with the PTAB (“Motion to Stay”). On January 8, 2014, the Company was granted leave by the Delaware District Court to add Versata Inc. as a counterclaim defendant. On March 4, 2014, the PTAB instituted covered business method patent review of each of Versata’s patents, namely, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,904,326, 7,908,304 and 7,958,024, finding that it is more likely than not that the Company will prevail in establishing that the challenged claims are not patentable. After requesting that the PTAB reconsider its decision to institute, which was denied, Versata filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) on April 11, 2014 asking that Court to deny institution of CBM patent review by the PTAB. The CAFC denied Versata’s petition for writ of mandamus on May 5, 2014. On April 17, 2014, the Company filed additional petitions with the PTAB for CBM patent review to address all of the remaining claims not previously covered in the prior petitions with respect to U.S Patent Nos. 7,908,304 and 7,958,024. On May 8, 2014, the Delaware District Court: (i) granted the Company’s Motion to Stay in part with respect to U.S. Patent No. 7,904,326, and (ii) denied the Company’s Motion to Stay in part with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,304 and 7,958,024. On May 8, 2014, the Company appealed to the CAFC the Delaware District Court’s denial of the Motion to Stay with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,908,304 and 7,958,024. At this stage in the case, the Company is not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse effect on the Company's financial condition is probable, or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any. |