直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

PTAB Issues First Final Written Decision in CBM Proceeding

June 13, 2013

Authored and Edited by Jeffrey A. Berkowitz

On June 11, 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued its first final written decision in a Post Grant Review proceeding under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents in case CBM2012-00001 (SAP America, Inc. et al. v. Versata Development Group, Inc.). The PTAB’s decision found all of the challenged claims of Versata’s U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In particular, the PTAB found that the ’350 patent claims recited abstract ideas that are not eligible for patenting. The ’350 patent claims systems and methods for pricing products using customer and product hierarchies, which the PTAB found to be abstract ideas without “enough significant meaningful limitations to transform these abstract ideas into patent-eligible applications.” The PTAB therefore issued an order cancelling all of the challenged claims as unpatentable. A copy of the PTAB’s decision can be found here.

 

Tags

Final Written Decision, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Contacts

Jeffrey A. Berkowitz
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2710
Email

Copyright © 2013 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 

DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

2026 TIPA International Symposium

October 30, 2026

Taipei City

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Hybrid Conference

2026 Patent Law Institute: Critical Issues & Best Practices – New York

October 29, 2026

New York

Hybrid Conference

Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California

October 19-20, 2026

San Francisco

Hybrid Seminar

Annual Intellectual Property Law Section Fall Seminar

October 16, 2026

Alexandria

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 5 of 6: Special Considerations for Third-Party Requesters

October 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Private Sale Gets No Safe Harbor from §102(b)(1)(B)

October 14, 2026

Webinar

2026 Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

October 14, 2026

Webinar

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP