Tag: appeal
-
Eastern District of Texas Denies SAP’s Motion to Vacate the Judgment in the Versata Patent Infringement Case
SAP recently learned that the Eastern District of Texas denied its motion to set aside or stay a district court judgment in favor of Versata for infringement of its U.S. Pat. 6,553,350 (Versata Software, Inc v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00153 (E.D. Tex)). On April 20, 2014, Judge Roy S. Payne dismissed SAP’s motion despite its…
-
Eastern District of Virginia Decides PTAB Decision to not institute IPR is Not Appealable
A patent owner insists that your company infringes a patent and makes a claim of patent infringement. You have settled patent infringement assertions before, but this patent seems invalid over known prior art. You consult with your patent counsel and a decision is made to file a petition for inter partes review (IPR) under the new post-grant…
-
SAP’s Cert Petition Denied by Supreme Court in Versata Patent Infringement Suit
In earlier posts, I described the $391 million patent infringement judgment awarded to Versata for SAP’s alleged infringement of US Pat. 6,553,350. I also detailed SAP’s attempts to avoid the judgment by challenging the ‘350 patent in the first covered business method patent review conducted by the Patent Office under the America Invents Act. (SAP v.…
-
Divided Federal Circuit Panel Finds Computer System Claims Not Patent-Eligible
Posted: September 8, 2013 On September 5, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed a District court holding that a computer system claim was not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., a divided panel affirmed a District of Delaware decision finding system claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent 7,013,284 not…
-
PTAB Provides More Guidance on Discovery
On March 5, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) provided guidance to the bar concerning routine discovery and additional discovery. (See paper 26 in Garmin v. Cuozzo, IPR2012-00001) This decision set forth five factors which are important in determining what constitutes discovery satisfying the “necessary in the interest of justice” standard under 35…
-
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 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…
-
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: ”…