11.

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. JuxtaComm’s Appeal before the BPAI is currently pending.

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 5, 2012, the Court issued an order containing its opinion supporting the Court’s grant of 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.

We will continue to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to JuxtaComm’s claims, and the District Court entered judgment in our favor, 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, or results of operations could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action, however, we are unable to estimate a range of potential loss at this time.

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. 1:10cv01028-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, or results of operations 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. Vasudevan seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. On May 18, 2012, the Court dismissed Vasudevan’s indirect and willful infringement claims.

The Court issued a claim construction order on September 19, 2012. The Court issued a case management scheduling order on April 27, 2012, including a fact discovery deadline of February 15, 2013, and an expert discovery deadline of May 3, 2013. An additional case management conference is scheduled for November 1, 2012. A trial date for the case has not yet been scheduled. 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, or results of operations could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action. As Vasudevan has made no specific demand for relief in this matter other than injunctive relief, we cannot currently estimate a reasonably possible range of loss for this action.

YYZ, LLC v. TIBCO Software Inc.

On February 10, 2012, YYZ, LLC (“YYZ”) filed a complaint for patent infringement against us in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:12-cv-00170-SLR. On April 18, 2012, YYZ filed a first amended complaint for patent infringement. YYZ alleges that certain TIBCO offerings, including at least TIBCO Business Studio, infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,046,747 (the “747 patent”). On May 7, 2012, we filed an answer and counterclaims to YYZ’s first amended complaint in which we denied YYZ’s claims and asserted counterclaims for declaratory relief that the ‘747 patent is invalid and not infringed.

Discovery has recently commenced and trial has been set for June 2, 2014.

YYZ seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. We intend to defend the action vigorously. While we believe that we have valid defenses to YYZ’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, or results of operations could be negatively affected by an unfavorable resolution of this action, however, we are unable to estimate a range of potential loss at this time.