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.
SAP’s interest in Versata’s APA challenge stems from an adverse judgment entered against SAP in 2011 by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. In that patent litigation, a jury awarded Versata $400 million for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 6,553,350 (“the ’350 patent”). SAP, however, petitioned for USPTO review of the ’350 patent under the AIA Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents. In June of 2013, the USPTO issued a Final Written Decision invalidating all challenged claims of Versata’s patent. Although recent Federal Circuit rulings make it unclear what effect the PTAB decision in favor of SAP will have on the judgment, Versata here challenges the USPTO’s initial decision to institute post-grant review proceedings.
In its memorandum in support of dismissal, SAP raises two distinct points. First, SAP argues that Versata’s challenge is statutorily precluded in light of the “final and nonappealable” language of 35 U.S.C. § 324(e) (governing transitional post-grant review proceedings) and analogous pre-AIA provisions. SAP further considers the factors underlying implied statutory preclusion enunciated by the Fourth Circuit in Southern Pines Assocs. v. United States, 912 F.2d 713 (4th Cir. 1990). In that case, the Fourth Circuit stated that “[i]n determining whether a statute precludes judicial review, we look not only to its language, but also to ‘the structure of the statutory scheme, its objectives, its legislative history, and the nature of the administrative action involved.’” Citing to the legislative history of the AIA, SAP describes how the Fourth Circuit’s factors are satisfied.
SAP’s second argument proceeds from the requirement that judicial review under the APA is reserved for “final agency action,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, which under Supreme Court precedent is marked by “the consummation of the agency’s decision making process . . . by which rights or obligations [are] determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 177-78 (1997) (internal quotations marks omitted). Here, SAP argues that finality is precluded because the PTAB’s initial decision is merely a threshold determination to begin proceedings that assigns no legal rights or consequences. To the contrary, SAP further argues, “the only legal right at issue here is the patentability of Versata’s challenged patent claims,” and only the PTAB’s Final Written Decision under 35 U.S.C. § 328 can affect the patentability of those claims.
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.
Conference
4th Spring Pharmaceutical Synchrotron X-Ray Powder Diffraction Workshop
June 10-11, 2024
Basel
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.