Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
793 F.3d 1306, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (2015)
- Written by Eric Miller, JD
Facts
Versata Development Group, Inc. (Versata) (plaintiff) plaintiff held a patent on a method and apparatus for pricing products in organizational tables. Versata brought an infringement action against SAP America, Inc. (SAP) (defendant) in federal district court. SAP requested that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) review the patent’s validity pursuant to § 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, a transitional program providing for post-grant review of the validity of patents directed to business methods. Section 18 defined a covered business method as a method or apparatus used in the practice or management of a financial product or service. Technological inventions were excluded from the definition. The PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the board) determined that Versata’s patent claimed an invention that qualified as a covered business method under § 18 and that several of the patent’s claims were invalid. Versata appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the invention was not a § 18 covered business method. The PTO countered that the decision of what constituted a covered business method was strictly a matter of the board’s authority and not open to appellate review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Plager, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.