Suit Takes Aim at "Business Method"
Definition & Propriety of 101 Grounds
The very first petition for a Covered Business Method
Patent Challenge (CBM) was filed on September 16th by SAP (CBM2012-00001). The
challenged U.S. Patent 6,553,350 of Versata Development Group. In May of
2011, Versata secured a $391 million dollar verdict in the Eastern District of
Texas against SAP. The verdict is currently on appeal to the CAFC.
Back in January, the PTAB held that SAP's CBM petition
had demonstrated that it was more likely than not that the claims of the '350
patent were unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 (Trial Order here).
The PTAB agreed to expedite the trial schedule and move the oral hearing to
April 17, 2013. (decision here)
The six month acceleration in the proceeding was provided in exchange for SAP
dropping the prior art defenses, and agreeing to move forward only on
their 101 challenge to the Versata patent.
Two weeks back, Versata filed suit against the USPTO
challenging the agency's definition of a "business method," and the ability to
raise 101 as a statutory ground in a CBM. (101 is argued as not being
embraced by 35 U.S.C. § 282, complaint here)
View more from Patents Post-Grant.
For more information about LexisNexis
products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.