SAP v Versata decision threatens business method patents

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

SAP v Versata decision threatens business method patents

uspto-seal-45.gif

Business method patent owners were dealt a blow this week after the PTAB confirmed it will assume the “broadest reasonable interpretation” of a patent when considering if its claims are too far-reaching under new post-grant challenge proceedings

In the first-ever covered business method (CBM) review trial, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found all five challenged claims in SAP v Versata invalid.

uspto-seal-200.gif

The PTAB concluded that Versata’s claims relating to a method and apparatus for pricing products and services are ineligible for patent protection under Section 101. Versata’s system arranges customers and products into a hierarchy and applies pricing adjustments to different groups.

The CBM review trial is a new post-grant patent challenge proceeding created under the AIA. Designed to reduce the number of overly broad business method patents, it allows those accused of infringing a patent covered under Section 18 of the AIA to challenge its validity through the USPTO’s appeals procedure rather than through the court system.

CBM review was introduced in September 2012. The USPTO will not accept any new petitions for CMB review on or after September 16, 2020.

Versata had argued that the terms for judging the validity of the claims should be based on a district court interpretation standard. But Administrative Patent Judges Sally Medley, Michael Tierney and Rama Elluru disagreed.

“The use of the broadest reasonable interpretation encourages patent owners to remove ambiguities and to narrow their claims by amendment, such that the inventor’s contribution to the art is expressed in clear, precise and unambiguous terms,” they said.

The dispute began in 2007, when Versata sued for infringement of US patent 6,553,350. A district court jury found that SAP had infringed the patent and awarded damages.

Both parties appealed to the Federal Circuit in October 2011. The appellate court affirmed the jury’s verdict and damages.

In September 2012, SAP filed a petition with the USPTO challenging claims 17 and 26 to 29 as being ineligible for patent protection. Versata claimed that SAP had failed to meet all three criteria for seeking a CBM review, but in February this year the PTAB disagreed and ordered that the review should go ahead.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Paul Hastings and Smart & Biggar also won multiple awards, while Baker McKenzie picked up a significant prize
Burford Capital study finds that in-house lawyers have become more likely to monetise patents, but that their IP portfolios are still underutilised
Robert Reading and Faidon Zisis at Clarivate unpick some of the data surrounding music-related trademarks
China's latest IP litigation statistics and a high-profile hire by O'Melveny were also among the top talking points this week
David Aylen, who spent more than 20 years at Gowling WLG, has joined United Trademark and Patent Services as of counsel in the UAE
Europe is among the most lucrative legal markets for PE firms to bet on, but clients’ reactions will decide whether external investment drives success
Rulings of note covered pre-June 2023 infringements and jurisdiction over non-UPC states, while winners of Managing IP’s EMEA Awards acted in multiple cases
Jason Blair, a former special marks examiner, said Dykema’s Texas presence will help him build deeper connections with clients
Lee Curtis and Rachel Platts at HGF discuss the rise of the ‘intention economy’ and its impact on trademark law
Martin Wintermeier discusses taking a hit for clients, not letting stress get to you, and why being a criminal defence lawyer might have been fun
Gift this article