Category: covered business methods
-
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…
-
SAP Files Ex Parte Reexamination Request using Prior Art from Ongoing Litigations
As you may recall from earlier posts, on September 16, 2012, SAP filed a petition for review of U.S. Pat. No. 6,553,350 to begin the first covered business method patent review (CBM2012-00001) under the America Invents Act. To advance its PTAB trial date, SAP agreed to limit its argument to 35 U.S.C. 101 challenges set forth…
-
Federal Circuit Appeal Decision in Versata Software v. SAP
A detailed discussion of the Versata v. SAP litigation and a timeline was provided in my earlier post. I reported that there are three actions related to this dispute: one in the PTAB, one in the Eastern District of Virginia, and one in the Federal Circuit. On May 1, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed the…
-
PTAB Publishes Trial Transcript from First Covered Business Method Patent Review
On April 17, 2013 the PTAB heard oral arguments in the first covered business method patent review between SAP and Versata. SAP challenged the validity of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 in the PTAB under 35 U.S.C. § 101. My earlier posts detailed the events. The PTAB trial transcript has recently been published and the trial…