Tag Archives: federal circuit

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 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Federal Circuit, Litigation, Post Grant Review, PRPS Patent Review Processing System, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Stay in Federal Circuit | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Federal Circuit, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, Stay in Federal Circuit | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTAB CBM: Versata Patent Claims Unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101

On 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 … Continue reading

Posted 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 generally | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, estoppel, Ex Parte Prosecution, Litigation, Patent Reform, patent-eligible subject matter, petitions practice, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

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 … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, Ex Parte Prosecution, patent-eligible subject matter | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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 … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, prior art, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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, … Continue reading

Posted in covered business methods, Damages, Litigation, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

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 … Continue reading

Posted in claim challenges, covered business methods, Litigation, patent-eligible subject matter, Post Grant Review, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, PTO Sued Under the APA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

AIA Patent Trials Differ from Reexamination

In the past few months, I have had discussions with many different stakeholders about how AIA post-grant review differs from conventional reexamination.  AIA patent trials (post-grant review or PGR, inter partes review or IPR, and covered business method patent review … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, covered business methods, estoppel, estoppel, ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, inter partes review, motion practice, Patent Reform, Post Grant Review, pro hac vice admission, PTAB, PTAB Patent Trials, reexamination generally, reexamination pendency, Special Dispatch, Substantial New Question (SNQ), Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment