Year: 2013
-
PTAB Authorizes SAP to file Opposition to Versata’s Rehearing Request
Even though the Rehearing Request filed by Versata last week is confidential, we can glean some insight about what it contained based on the publicly available documents of record. Today the PTAB authorized SAP to file its motion to oppose Versata’s Rehearing Request, stating: Patent owner Versata filed a motion for rehearing [ ] of…
-
More Developments in the Patent Battle between SAP and Versata
There has been a lot of activity in the litigations arising from the patent battle between SAP and Versata. You will recall that there are parallel Federal Circuit, PTAB, and Eastern District of Virginia actions. There have been activities in all of these courts since my last post. Federal Circuit After the Patent Office decided…
-
SAP Joins PTO against Versata in Eastern District of Virginia
You may recall that Versata sued the Patent Office in the Eastern District of Virginia to challenge the PTAB’s decision to institute a CBM review of Versata’s U.S. 6,553,350 patent. Versata Development Group, Inc. v. Rea, 1:13-cv-00328-GBL-IDD (E.D. VA). It turns out that SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG (collectively “SAP”) filed a Motion to Intervene in…
-
SAP Moves for a Stay of Parallel Federal Circuit Action After PTAB Win
SAP’s fight to dismiss Versata’s U.S. 6,553,350 patent assertion continues. After SAP’s win in the PTAB on June 11, 2013, SAP filed a motion to stay the parallel Federal Circuit appeal on June 17th. Now the Federal Circuit must decide whether to stay the ongoing appeal after upholding the district court judgment on damages and…
-
PTAB CBM: Versata Patent Claims Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101
—
by
in America Invents Act, Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, claim challenges, Claim Construction, covered business methods, ex parte reexamination, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, Phillips-type construction, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, reexamination generallyOn June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision holding claims 17 and 26-29 of Versata’s 6,553,350 patent unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This decision arises from a petition filed on Sep. 16, 2012, in a proceeding that was accelerated when SAP agreed to focus its challenge on its proffered 101…
-
Joinder in Patent Office Proceedings Clarified by PTAB
Several posts ago we explored how the Board perceived joinder of a subsequent petition filed by a petitioner to an ongoing proceeding. A recent ruling by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) clarifies how the Board views joinder of new parties to pending post-grant proceedings. U.S. Bancorp filed a covered business method petition on March…
-
AIA Post-Grant Practice Rapidly Integrates Federal Circuit and Board Decisions
AIA post-grant practice has many advantages over other proceedings, but one of the great benefits of AIA post-grant practice that we have not discussed is the speed in which AIA post-grant proceedings adopt recent patent decisions from different sources. This is really an exciting and challenging feature of AIA post-grant practice that has become even…
-
Patent Office Guidance for Examiners in wake of CLS Bank Decision: No Change for Now
On May 13, 2013, the Patent Office issued a memo to USPTO examiners after the CLS Bank et al. v. Alice Corp. Federal Circuit en banc decision of last week. The memo instructs examiners to maintain existing examination procedure for evaluating subject matter patentability. Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, Andrew Hirshfeld, advised examiners: ”…
-
A Tale of Two Patent Litigation Stays
This is a story about not one, but two stays. The first stay is a district court stay pending the outcome of a reexamination of a patent in suit. The second is an administrative (PTAB) stay of that same reexamination pending the outcome of an AIA patent litigation proceeding based on that same patent. The…