In this four-part series, we follow Versata’s challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to the USPTO’s implementation of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents, Section 18 of the AIA. Part 1 covers Versata’s complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; Part 2 reviews the USPTO’s motion to dismiss; Part 3 discusses Versata’s response; and Part 4 summarizes intervenor SAP’s arguments in support of dismissal.
What is a covered business method (CBM) patent under § 18 of the AIA? Can review of a CBM patent under § 18 be sought on the basis that the patent fails to satisfy the requirements of subject-matter eligibility, 35 U.S.C. § 101? These are the central questions raised by plaintiff Versata in its district court challenge to a recent decision by the USPTO instituting a post-grant review of U.S. Patent 6,553,350 (the ’350 patent). That review, the first such review ever conducted by the agency, was conducted concurrently with the district court briefing and concluded with a PTAB decision canceling each challenged claim as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Finnegan represented patent challenger SAP as intervener in the district court action and before the USPTO.
Post-grant review (PGR) under the AIA is new mechanism of post-issuance administrative review generally limited to patents issuing from applications filed on or after March 16, 2013. Section 18, however, expands the availability of PGR to cover CBM patents filed before March 16, 2013, so long as the patent in question has been asserted in an infringement suit and the party seeking review was a defendant. Under the statute, CBM patents claim “a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.”
In its complaint, Versata first argues that the PTAB exceeded its statutory authority by broadly construing § 18 to cover “patents claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or complementary to a financial activity.” Asserting that the PTAB’s construction would expand PGR to cover patents “relat[ing] in any way to money,” Versata urges an alternative construction of § 18 that would narrowly limit CBM eligibility to patents “related to financial products or services.”
Versata’s other challenge concerns the grounds upon which a PGR may be sought. Specifically, Versata argues that the AIA limits the scope of review to “conditions for patentability” under Part II of the Title 35, and that while §§ 102 and 103 are designated as such, § 101 is not.
In Part 2, we examine the USPTO’s motion to dismiss Versata’s challenge.
35 U.S.C. § 101, Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Eastern District of Virginia, preclusion, software patents, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
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.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Conference
16th Annual Practitioners’ Think Tank on ITC Litigation & Enforcement
May 29-30, 2024
Washington
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.