Mckool smith secures substantial verdict for versata in. The patent is also involved in copending litigation, namely versata software inc. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courtsclaimconstruction,and thevalidityofthe350patent was not an. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this featured case. This case, versata ii, is a companion to versata development group, inc. During the first trial, versatas expert presented evidence that saps software used hierarchical pricing. That verdict was set aside, with judge everingham ordering a new trial on damages. Case cbm201200001 patent 6,553,350 6 construction, and there are no issues on appeal relating to the validity of the 350. Here, the record supports the jury s 16 versata software v. Sap america finding of demand for the patented functionality in a but for world. Sap appealed the district courts final judgment to our court. The 350 patent is directed to a method and apparatus for pricing products and services. Beware of risky litigation strategies hhm certified.
Who is defined by the creation of an organizational hierarchy of organizational groups. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001, presents many issues of first impression regarding the scope of aia trials. Ptab 20 by michael borella in an example of judicial reasoning rolling downhill, the u. For the detailed background and facts, see the opinion in versata i, no. The cases were consolidated for argument purposes, but are decided separately. Circuit judges newman, plager, and hughes opinion by circuit judge plager. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. In april 2007, versata sued sap for infringement of u. District court, eastern district of texas marshall.
Of note, sap did not appeal the district courts claim. The appeals have been fully briefed and are currently pending. Over the last 18 months, the rules and standards for these proceedings have begun to be hashed out, but this area of law is still evolving. Petition for certiorari denied on january 21, 2014. Letter of january 15, 2014, from counsel for petitioners received. The district court action began in 2007 when versata sued sap for alleged infringement of its u. Patent and trademark offices patent trial and appeal board ptab has struck down claims directed to a computerimplemented business method as failing to meet the requirements of 35 u. Case opinion for us federal circuit versata software inc v. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case versata software, inc.
We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Administrative patent judges administrative patent judge. Versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. The district court judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals for federal circuit versata software, inc. Appeals from the united states district court for the eastern district of texas in case no. The panduit factors place no qualitative requirement on the level of demand necessary to show lost profits.
A first jury trial was held in 2009, and a second jury trial was held in 2011. On april 20, 2007, versata, along with versata software, inc. The mckool smith team representing versata included firm principals scott cole, sam baxter, steve pollinger, and associates joshua budwin, and leah buratti. District court for the eastern district of texas, and case number 121029 in the u. The case was remanded for the district court to enter an order conforming to our opinion. However, all of the partiesincluding versatarecognize that these supposed benefits are not recited in the claims at issue. United states court of appeals for the federal circuit. Citations are also linked in the body of the featured case. After a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc. The federal circuit affirmed the jurys infringement verdict and damages award but vacated and remanded a permanent. The federal circuit made a mixed decision after hearing the appeals from both sides. Ptab trial transcript released for sap america, inc. This article and its downloads are available with a subscription to any of these products. Updates with company comment starting in third paragraph.
Now the dispute is worth watching for another reason it has set the. The federal circuit will probably also wind up with an appeal of the ptab decision since sap had asked the federal circuit to stay the damage award. Introduction pending before the court is defendants sap america, inc. In light of this definition, as well as the supreme courts holding in alice corp. Rather, he followed saps own directions on how to implement pricing functionality in its software and activated functions already present in the software. Reply of petitioner versata development group, inc. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courts claim construction, and the validity of the 350 patent was not an issue on appeal. Two recent patent infringement cases involve damages strategies that backfired.
36 142 511 1099 1291 725 1043 1367 1102 796 1308 178 584 343 1559 1643 1469 343 206 1358 636 632 1152 263 810 814 278 1421 700 196 1090 797 690