Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2013
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	Legal Proceedings JuxtaComm v. TIBCO, et al. On January 21, 2010, JuxtaComm-Texas Software, LLC ("JuxtaComm") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:10-CV-00011-LED. On April 22, 2010, JuxtaComm filed an amended complaint in which it alleges that certain TIBCO offerings, including TIBCO ActiveMatrix Business Works™, TIBCO iProcess™ Suite, TIBCO Business Studio™ and TIBCO ActiveMatrix® Service Bus infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,195,662 ("'662 patent"). JuxtaComm seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On May 6, 2010, we filed an answer and counterclaims in which we denied JuxtaComm's claims and asserted counterclaims for declaratory relief that the asserted patent is invalid and not infringed. On May 12, 2011, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ("PTO") issued a Final Office Action rejecting all asserted claims of the '662 patent in a separate re-examination proceeding before the PTO. On September 9, 2011, JuxtaComm filed a Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI"), challenging the Final Office Action. On January 31, 2013, the BPAI reversed the PTO's rejection of the asserted claim. On May 15, 2012, the Court in the Eastern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on invalidity of the asserted claims. On May 16, 2012, the Court issued an order staying all deadlines and vacating the trial date in light of the Court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity. On July 6, 2012, the Court issued its order granting summary judgment. On September 19, 2012, the Court issued an order of final judgment against JuxtaComm and taxed the defendants' costs of court against JuxtaComm. JuxtaComm filed a notice of appeal on September 28, 2012. On September 30, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity (JustaComm-Texas Software, LLC v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., No. 2013-1004, -1025). JuxtaComm did not file a writ petition or take any other action to appeal the Federal Circuit's affirmance by the applicable deadlines, and, accordingly, we consider the action concluded. InvestPic, LLC v. TIBCO, et al. On November 24, 2010, InvestPic, LLC ("InvestPic") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and fourteen other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:10cv1028-SLR. The complaint alleges that TIBCO Spotfire^® S+^® "and other similar products" infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 (the "’291 patent"). On March 29, 2011, defendant SAS Institute Inc. ("SAS") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief on the basis that all the asserted claims of the ’291 patent are invalid as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. On May 13, 2011, TIBCO, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as SAS’ motion. On September 30, 2011, the Court denied this motion to dismiss. However, the Court declined to address the merits of defendants’ arguments that the claims of the ’291 patent are directed to unpatentable subject matter, in the absence of discovery or claim construction. On May 3, 2012, defendants SAS, Algorithmics (U.S.), Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the reexamination of the ’291 patent. On July 10, 2012, the Court entered an order to stay the litigation and administratively close the case during the pendency of the reexamination of the '291 patent. InvestPic seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to InvestPic's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. As InvestPic has made no specific demand for damages in this matter other than injunctive relief, we cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action. Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO, et al. On December 23, 2011, Vasudevan Software, Inc. ("Vasudevan") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and Spotfire Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:11-cv-06638-RS. The complaint alleges that TIBCO directly, indirectly, and willfully infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 B1 based on "Spotfire Analytics and other products." Vasudevan further alleges in its infringement contentions that the accused products "include at least the TIBCO Spotfire Platform (e.g., TIBCO Spotfire Professional, TIBCO Spotfire Server, TIBCO Spotfire Web Player, TIBCO Spotfire Enterprise Player, TIBCO Spotfire for the Apple iPad, TIBCO Spotfire Application Data Services, TIBCO Spotfire Developer, TIBCO Spotfire Metrics, TIBCO Spotfire Network Analytics, TIBCO Spotfire Operations Analytics Bundle, and TIBCO Silver Spotfire) at least versions 4.0 to 2.1, as well as any TIBCO products and services that utilize the TIBCO Spotfire Platform." Vasudevan amended its complaint on March 6, 2012, but continues to accuse the same products of infringement. On May 18, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss Vasudevan's indirect and willful infringement claims. Vasudevan filed a second amended complaint on July 24, 2012, adding a claim for inducement of infringement for alleged acts of indirect infringement occurring after the filing of the original complaint. On September 19, 2012, the Court issued a claim construction order, followed by an order on September 19, 2013, clarifying the prior claim construction. Fact discovery closed on February 15, 2013. Expert discovery closed on June 7, 2013. On October 16, 2013, Vasudevan filed a stipulation of noninfringement based on the court’s claim construction orders. On October 17, 2013, the court granted our motion for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 for lack of written description and enablement. In light of the stipulation of noninfringement and the order granting summary judgment of invalidity, the court entered judgment in our favor on October 17, 2013. Vasudevan filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 11, 2013, seeking reversal of the final judgment entered on October 17, 2013, including the claim construction orders of September 19, 2012 and September 19, 2013, and the October 17, 2013 order regarding invalidity. Vasudevan’s opening appeal brief is due January 28, 2014. The court has yet to schedule oral argument. We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to Vasudevan's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action.

Legal Proceedings

JuxtaComm v. TIBCO, et al.

On January 21, 2010, JuxtaComm-Texas Software, LLC ("JuxtaComm") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 6:10-CV-00011-LED. On April 22, 2010, JuxtaComm filed an amended complaint in which it alleges that certain TIBCO offerings, including TIBCO ActiveMatrix Business Works™, TIBCO iProcess™ Suite, TIBCO Business Studio™ and TIBCO ActiveMatrix® Service Bus infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,195,662 ("'662 patent"). JuxtaComm seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On May 6, 2010, we filed an answer and counterclaims in which we denied JuxtaComm's claims and asserted counterclaims for declaratory relief that the asserted patent is invalid and not infringed.

On May 12, 2011, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office ("PTO") issued a Final Office Action rejecting all asserted claims of the '662 patent in a separate re-examination proceeding before the PTO. On September 9, 2011, JuxtaComm filed a Notice of Appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("BPAI"), challenging the Final Office Action. On January 31, 2013, the BPAI reversed the PTO's rejection of the asserted claim.

On May 15, 2012, the Court in the Eastern District of Texas granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on invalidity of the asserted claims. On May 16, 2012, the Court issued an order staying all deadlines and vacating the trial date in light of the Court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity. On July 6, 2012, the Court issued its order granting summary judgment. On September 19, 2012, the Court issued an order of final judgment against JuxtaComm and taxed the defendants' costs of court against JuxtaComm. JuxtaComm filed a notice of appeal on September 28, 2012. On September 30, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's grant of summary judgment of invalidity (JustaComm-Texas Software, LLC v. TIBCO Software Inc., et al., No. 2013-1004, -1025). JuxtaComm did not file a writ petition or take any other action to appeal the Federal Circuit's affirmance by the applicable deadlines, and, accordingly, we consider the action concluded.

InvestPic, LLC v. TIBCO, et al.

On November 24, 2010, InvestPic, LLC ("InvestPic") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and fourteen other defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:10cv1028-SLR. The complaint alleges that TIBCO Spotfire^® S+^® "and other similar products" infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 (the "’291 patent"). On March 29, 2011, defendant SAS Institute Inc. ("SAS") filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief on the basis that all the asserted claims of the ’291 patent are invalid as being directed to unpatentable subject matter. On May 13, 2011, TIBCO, along with other defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the same grounds as SAS’ motion. On September 30, 2011, the Court denied this motion to dismiss. However, the Court declined to address the merits of defendants’ arguments that the claims of the ’291 patent are directed to unpatentable subject matter, in the absence of discovery or claim construction. On May 3, 2012, defendants SAS, Algorithmics (U.S.), Inc. and International Business Machines Corp. filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the reexamination of the ’291 patent. On July 10, 2012, the Court entered an order to stay the litigation and administratively close the case during the pendency of the reexamination of the '291 patent.

InvestPic seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to InvestPic's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. As InvestPic has made no specific demand for damages in this matter other than injunctive relief, we cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action.

Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. TIBCO, et al.

On December 23, 2011, Vasudevan Software, Inc. ("Vasudevan") filed a complaint for patent infringement against us and Spotfire Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:11-cv-06638-RS. The complaint alleges that TIBCO directly, indirectly, and willfully infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 B1 based on "Spotfire Analytics and other products." Vasudevan further alleges in its infringement contentions that the accused products "include at least the TIBCO Spotfire Platform (e.g., TIBCO Spotfire Professional, TIBCO Spotfire Server, TIBCO Spotfire Web Player, TIBCO Spotfire Enterprise Player, TIBCO Spotfire for the Apple iPad, TIBCO Spotfire Application Data Services, TIBCO Spotfire Developer, TIBCO Spotfire Metrics, TIBCO Spotfire Network Analytics, TIBCO Spotfire Operations Analytics Bundle, and TIBCO Silver Spotfire) at least versions 4.0 to 2.1, as well as any TIBCO products and services that utilize the TIBCO Spotfire Platform." Vasudevan amended its complaint on March 6, 2012, but continues to accuse the same products of infringement. On May 18, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss Vasudevan's indirect and willful infringement claims. Vasudevan filed a second amended complaint on July 24, 2012, adding a claim for inducement of infringement for alleged acts of indirect infringement occurring after the filing of the original complaint. On September 19, 2012, the Court issued a claim construction order, followed by an order on September 19, 2013, clarifying the prior claim construction. Fact discovery closed on February 15, 2013. Expert discovery closed on June 7, 2013.

On October 16, 2013, Vasudevan filed a stipulation of noninfringement based on the court’s claim construction orders. On October 17, 2013, the court granted our motion for summary judgment of invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,167,864 for lack of written description and enablement. In light of the stipulation of noninfringement and the order granting summary judgment of invalidity, the court entered judgment in our favor on October 17, 2013.

Vasudevan filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on November 11, 2013, seeking reversal of the final judgment entered on October 17, 2013, including the claim construction orders of September 19, 2012 and September 19, 2013, and the October 17, 2013 order regarding invalidity. Vasudevan’s opening appeal brief is due January 28, 2014. The court has yet to schedule oral argument.

We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to Vasudevan's claims, litigation is inherently unpredictable and we cannot make any predictions as to the outcome of this litigation. It is possible that our business, financial position, results of operations, cash position or cash flow could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. We cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action.