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.
After the Patent Office decided that the claims challenged in the related covered business method patent review were invalid, SAP motioned for a stay of proceedings in the Federal Circuit. In a simple, one page document, the Federal Circuit denied that motion for stay on July 5, 2013 without providing further comment or opinion.
Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
One month after the PTAB ruling, Versata filed a Rehearing Request. That document shows up on the PTAB PRPS as being filed on July 11, 2013. (It is currently showing availability to only the parties and the Board, so it was not available for download at the time of this post.)
Eastern District of Virginia
You may recall that Versata also challenged the institution of the CBM by suing the Patent Office in the Eastern District of Virginia. As reported in a recent post, SAP intervened in that action. On July 12, 2013, that court granted the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by the Patent Office and SAP.
So it appears that the contest is now boiling down to a race between a final judgment in the district court litigation and a final judgment in the PTAB proceeding. Of course, this will likely amount to two cases before the Federal Circuit, because should Versata’s Rehearing Request fail, its recourse is an appeal to the Federal Circuit. So that might mean two Federal Circuit cases: (1) the existing appeal in the district court action (which was not stayed by the Federal Circuit) and (2) a (future) appeal from the PTAB decision if the rehearing request is denied.