Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 14-1194 (Fed. Cir. 2015)Annotate this Case
Versata sued SAP for infringing its 350 patent, entitled “method and apparatus for pricing products in multi-level product and organizational groups.” A jury awarded damages. Meanwhile, SAP petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, alleging that the patent was a covered business method patent, subject to the special provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, 125 Stat. at 329–31.3 Section 18 establishes a separately-designated transitional program for post-grant review proceedings concerning the validity of covered business method patents, under procedures governed by 35 U.S.C. 321– 329. The PTAB cancelled certain claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Federal Circuit held that, on appeal in a section 18 case, it has authority review issues decided during the PTAB review process, regardless of when they first arose in the process, if they are part of or a predicate to the ultimate merits. The invention claimed in the 350 patent is a covered business method patent and does not fall within the meaning of a “technological invention.” The court affirmed PTAB’s claim constructions and that the claims at issue were properly held invalid under section 101.