In this 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 of this series examined Versata’s original complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Part 2 reviewed the agency’s motion to dismiss. Part 3 discusses Versata’s response, and Part 4 summarizes intervenor SAP’s arguments in support of dismissal.
Versata’s opposition to the USPTO’s motion to dismiss focuses on the APA’s presumption in favor of judicial review, and emphasizes that its challenge is directed to review of jurisdictional issues and not the merits of agency’s decision.
Versata asserts that 35 U.S.C. § 324(e) only precludes an appeal from the Director’s decision to institute a post-grant review, and not whether that decision is ultimately reviewable. But even if that were the case, Versata makes a textual argument that the unreviewable “determination” under § 324(e) is limited to decision’s substantive grounds and not the jurisdictional question, also relying on a similar interpretation for inter partes reexamination in Callaway Golf Co. v. Kappos, 802 F. Supp. 2d 678 (E.D. Va. 2011).
The opposition also cites the USPTO’s posting of the decision to institute the PGR to its website (“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices”) as evidence that the agency’s action was final, and thus subject to review under the APA. Versata also uses the posting to cast the decision as a rulemaking “designed to implement . . . law or policy,” rather than an interlocutory adjudication. In addition, Versata emphasizes the possibility that its $400 million damage award will be vacated to show an effect on its legal rights and obligations.
Finally, in the response to the agency’s position that the AIA provides an adequate remedy — an appeal to the Federal Circuit — Versata argues that because its jurisdictional claims were not considered in the PTAB’s final written decision, there is “no guarantee” that those claims would be reviewed on appeal. Thus, rather than “bet the farm” appealing the merits of the PTAB decision canceling its claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Versata argues that the APA’s presumption in favor of review should win out “where there is doubt concerning [an] alternative remedy.”
In Part 4, we examine the intervenor SAP’s arguments in support of dismissal.
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.