Copyright Litigator
2010-07-17 23:28:44 UTC
Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
This is a discussion on Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court
Exposed within the Copyright, Trademark, Patent forum, part of the
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & INTERNET LAW category; 2. Chordiant Inc.'s
"Defenses" Were A Sham Prejudgment interest also should be awarded
because Chordiant Inc.'s "defenses" were a sham. ...
Community Links
Social Groups
Recently Updated Albums
Members
Top Posters
Search Forums
Show Threads Show Posts
Tag Search
Advanced Search
Find All Thanked Posts
Go to Page...
Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 8th, 2010, 03:55 AM #1
Unregistered
Guest
Unregistered's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Our attorneys have years of experience with positive results in the
debt reduction / debt relief field. Click here for more information.
Old Jul 15th, 2010, 03:14 PM #2
IPLitigator
Guest
IPLitigator's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Any sanctions imposed?
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:25 PM #3
Unregistered
Guest
Unregistered's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Sad. But doesn't the state bar require lawyers to meet certain moral
standards?
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:30 PM #4
EthicPL
Guest
EthicPL's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Did the Judge believe Mr. Pulgram's false statements? If the judge
didn't believe the false statement, then the Court was not deceived,
and there was no fraud upon the court.
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:34 PM #5
MagisX
Guest
MagisX's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by EthicPL View Post
Did the Judge believe Mr. Pulgram's false statements? If the judge
didn't believe the false statement, then the Court was not deceived,
and there was no fraud upon the court.
Some of the judges became the victims of such fraud committed by
attorneys. But most judges are experienced enough to smell something
suspicious.
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 07:25 PM #6
Unregistered
Guest
Unregistered's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Such disgrace to the legal profession.
Reply With Quote
This is a discussion on Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court
Exposed within the Copyright, Trademark, Patent forum, part of the
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & INTERNET LAW category; 2. Chordiant Inc.'s
"Defenses" Were A Sham Prejudgment interest also should be awarded
because Chordiant Inc.'s "defenses" were a sham. ...
Community Links
Social Groups
Recently Updated Albums
Members
Top Posters
Search Forums
Show Threads Show Posts
Tag Search
Advanced Search
Find All Thanked Posts
Go to Page...
Consult Your Own Personal Lawyer Now!
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 8th, 2010, 03:55 AM #1
Unregistered
Guest
Unregistered's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Our attorneys have years of experience with positive results in the
debt reduction / debt relief field. Click here for more information.
Old Jul 15th, 2010, 03:14 PM #2
IPLitigator
Guest
IPLitigator's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Any sanctions imposed?
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:25 PM #3
Unregistered
Guest
Unregistered's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Sad. But doesn't the state bar require lawyers to meet certain moral
standards?
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 03:30 PM #4
EthicPL
Guest
EthicPL's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Did the Judge believe Mr. Pulgram's false statements? If the judge
didn't believe the false statement, then the Court was not deceived,
and there was no fraud upon the court.
Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:34 PM #5
MagisX
Guest
MagisX's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by EthicPL View Post
Did the Judge believe Mr. Pulgram's false statements? If the judge
didn't believe the false statement, then the Court was not deceived,
and there was no fraud upon the court.
Some of the judges became the victims of such fraud committed by
attorneys. But most judges are experienced enough to smell something
suspicious.
Reply With Quote
Old Today, 07:25 PM #6
Unregistered
Guest
Unregistered's Avatar
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Laurence Pulgram's Fraud Upon the Court Exposed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
2. Chordiant Inc.'s "Defenses" Were A Sham
Prejudgment interest also should be awarded because Chordiant Inc.'s
"defenses" were a sham.
As an initial matter, Chordiant Inc. admitted at the trial that it did
not have a license to use Plaintiffs' Java RPC software. Thus,
infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC was clear.
Moreover, Chordiant Inc.'s license defense concerning Plaintiffs'
Windows RPC was based on a sham. Specifically, Chordiant Inc. asserted
that, because emails that Toye Akande had sent to Netbula in 2004
contained "Chordiant Software Inc." in Mr. Åkande's email signature,
the 2004 Upgrade had been granted to Chordiant Inc., and not to
Chordiant Software International Inc.[1]
Although Chordiant Inc. had the burden of proving it had a license, it
never introduced any evidence that Mr. Akande actually worked for
Chordiant Inc., rather than Chordiant International. Significantly,
after the trial was over, Chordiant Inc.'s counsel admitted there was
no evidence that Mr. Akande ever worked for Chordiant Inc. Chordiant
Inc. only made that admission in response to Plaintiffs' assertion
that the jury could find that Mr. Akande's use of Plaintiffs'
Development Kit constituted infringement because Chordiant Inc. had
argued that Mr. Akande worked for Chordiant Inc.:
THE COURT: Who is Mr. Akande?
MR. PULGRAM: Mr. Akande was an employee of Chordiant Software
International Limited.
At some point he sent an e-mail.
THE COURT: So he was never Chordiant Software, Inc.?
MR. PULGRAM: There's no evidence that he's a Chordiant Software,
Inc. employee.
There is an e-mail that he sent identifying the company that wanted an
upgrade as Chordiant Software, Inc., but that was only in 2004. THE
COURT: Did he switch?
MR. PULGRAM: Your Honor, I don't know that he switched. There's
nothing in the record about it, and I can't represent to you who paid
his paycheck that day, but I can tell you that it's Plaintiffs'
burden. THE COURT: But aren't you just now introducing confusion into
the record because if he indeed was a Chordiant International employee
and he wrote a letter saying Chordiant Software while indeed he was
International, it proves the Plaintiffs' point that they thought they
were still dealing with International and it undercuts your claim that
they knew they were dealing with a different company. (Tr. at
1223:14-1224:15)
It therefore is clear that Chordiant Inc.'s license defense was a
complete sham, unsupported by any evidence. Chordiant Inc.'s assertion
of such a defense is sanctionable. At the very least, it supports an
award of prejudgment interest.
3. Chordiant Inc. Substantially Delayed The Proceedings
As demonstrated above, prejudgment interest should be awarded
regardless of whether Chordiant Inc. delayed the litigation.
Regardless, however, Chordiant Inc.'s delay further supports an award
of prejudgment interest.
Because the copyrighted works at issue consist of computer software
that is used to develop or is otherwise contained in other products
that are sold to businesses, it is virtually impossible for Plaintiffs
to discover when their software is being infringed.
Plaintiffs instead have to rely on the honesty of their customers or
other people who have downloaded Plaintiffs' software to honor the
terms of their license agreements and accurately report the scope of
their usage.
With respect to Plaintiffs' Java software, Chordiant Inc. has conceded
that it used such software in products it sold beginning in 2001.
Chordiant Inc. further conceded that it never obtained a license for
such software and never paid Plaintiffs for the software. Chordiant
Inc. did not disclose to Plaintiffs that it had been using Plaintiffs'
Java RPC software until 2009, after Plaintiffs commenced this lawsuit.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is solely responsible for the delay in resolving
its undisputed infringement of Plaintiffs' Java RPC software.
Chordiant Inc. is also responsible for the delay in the resolution of
its infringement of Plaintiffs' Windows RPC software. Plaintiffs asked
Toye Akande in 2004 how many copies of Netbula's Windows software had
been made. Mr. Akande falsely stated that there were only 70 copies.
(Ex. 1090) As a result of Mr. Akande's misrepresentations, Plaintiffs
did not pursue an audit. (Tr. at 260:11-17)
Similarly, Chordiant Inc.'s general counsel falsely stated in 2007
that only 953 copies had been made, and expressly asserted that the
figure was less than the 1,000 copies permitted by the license
agreement. (Ex. 1084-1,1084-2) Chordiant Inc. ultimately admitted at
trial that Mr. Witte's assertion was incorrect, and that Chordiant
Inc. had greatly exceeded the 1,000 copy limit.
The reason for these misrepresentations concerning the number of
copies is clear: Chordiant Inc. was trying to avoid liability for its
infringement.
Thus, Chordiant Inc. is responsible for the delay in the resolution of
this matter.
[1] The evidence clearly established that Chordiant International—and
not Chordiant Inc.—was the entity that received the 2004 Upgrade.
Among other things, there was no dispute that Chordiant International
was the successor entity to Prime Response Ltd., the entity that had
received the license in 2000. In addition, Chordiant International was
the entity that sent the purchase order for the 2004 Upgrade to
Netbula. (Ex. 1189) Netbula sent the invoice to Chordiant
International. (Ex. 1069) Chordiant International—not Chordiant Inc.—
was the entity that paid the invoice. (Ex. 1190)
Such disgrace to the legal profession.
Reply With Quote