Ultimately, the trial court found no infringement of the u. Versata argues that its claims recite a specific approach to determining the price of a product on a computer, using hierarchies so as to enable the. The case was remanded for the district court to enter an order conforming to our opinion. On april 20, 2007, versata, along with versata software, inc. Rather, he followed saps own directions on how to implement pricing functionality in its software and activated functions already present in the software. Versata then filed suit against sap in 2007, claiming the latter companys pricing software infringed on patents it holds. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001, presents many. Letter of january 16, 2014, from counsel for respondent versata software, inc.
Versata is a businessrules based application development environment running in java ee. In its petition to the uspto, sap alleged that the patent was a covered business method patent. Federal circuit affirms lost profits and royalty award finding defendants raised questions of admissibility of plaintiff expert testimony in the improper context because these are daubert issues. Versata sold its software, called pricer, in the late 1990s to customers such as international business machines corp. Before sap launched its new software, it stated the planned software would be like versatas pricer. We communicate regularly with our customers to ensure they are receiving the value they expect from our software. Sap began offering customized pricing as part of its. United states court of appeals for the federal circuit. Patent and trademark offices patent trial and appeal. The district court judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals for federal circuit versata software. Versata owns the 350 patent and had previously sued sap for infringing the patent. Court of appeals for the federal circuit rader, prost, moore affirmedinpart, vacatedinpart and remandedinpart the district courts judgment that sap did not infringe u. Court of appeals for the federal circuit rader, prost, moore affirmedinpart, vacatedinpart and remandedinpart the. In the 1990s, versata developed pricing software sap customers used along with their erp enterpriseresourceplanning implementations.
Apparently, sap had not raised the issue of patent ineligibility under 35 u. Versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted. Announced the acquisition of nuvo network management inc. After a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc. Each versata company puts customers first with a simple lead. May 01, 20 after a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc.
Versata showed demand for its product before sap entered the market, and it showed continued demand for the patented feature during the damages period. Federal circuit affirms lost profits and royalty award finding defendants raised questions of admissibility of plaintiff expert testimony in the improper context because these are daubert. Sap seeks to exclude expert testimony relating to both of versata. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case versata software, inc. Case opinion for us federal circuit versata software inc v. Jurors also found that saps products, which were redesigned in may 2010, continued to infringe. Ptab 20 by michael borella in an example of judicial reasoning rolling downhill, the u. District court for the eastern district of texas, and case number 12. Sap provides software solutions for thousands of companies, governments, and nonprofits around the globe. The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not martindalehubbell. Sap later developed its own brand of pricing software and. The worlds first software factory powers all versata companies for sustainable innovation with. When sap ultimately released its software in october 1998, it bundled the hierarchical pricing capability into its full enterprise software to discourage the use of bolton products like pricer.
The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found infringement and awarded damages. The federal circuit affirmed the jurys infringement verdict and damages award but vacated and remanded a permanent. May 01, 20 versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. The patent is also involved in copending litigation, namely. Versata provides enterprise software solutions that deliver business results, performance and scalability while dramatically reducing it spending. Versata, which sells enterprise software to companies such as utilities and telecom providers, said its products had been copied illegally in sap applications and sued sap for infringement in 2007. Nuvo was a canadianbased managed service providersoftware provider.
We want to understand your needs and make your organization successful. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Patent and trademark offices patent trial and appeal board ptab has struck down claims directed to a computerimplemented business method as failing to meet the requirements of 35 u. While versatas patent application was pending, sap released a new version of its software that contained hierarchical pricing capability, which, it stated, was like pricer. Austin, txmarketwire 051411 austinbased versata software, inc. Versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. Versata sold pricer either as a package with other versata software or as a bolton addition to enterprise systems offered by companies like sap.
In its petition to the uspto, sap alleged that the patent was a covered. Each versata company puts customers first with a simple lead objective 100% of customers declaring success. Rather, he followed saps own directions on how to implement pricing functionality in its. Jun 12, 20 versata sold its software, called pricer, in the late 1990s to customers such as international business machines corp. July 9, 2015 versata i, the court addressed four issues relating to cbm proceedings generally. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courtsclaimconstruction,and thevalidityofthe350patent was not an. May 14, 2011 austin, txmarketwire 051411 austinbased versata software, inc. Versata and selectica are engaged in a lawsuit, styled versata software inc. The patent is also involved in copending litigation, namely versata software inc. Versata, who had sued sap for infringing the patent. Jul 16, 2015 versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted.
Sap and versata software have abruptly settled a longrunning patent dispute that dates back to 2007, and of late had sap facing the prospect. Letter of january 15, 2014, from counsel for petitioners received. The district court action began in 2007 when versata sued sap for alleged infringement of its u. Versata invests capital and operational excellence to revitalize worldclass software and technology companies for sustainable success. February 22, 2008 privately held versata enterprises, inc. While versata s patent application was pending, sap released a new version of its software that contained hierarchical pricing capability, which, it stated, was like pricer. Particularly, versata disagreed with the ptabs conclusion that the 350 patent was a cbm patent. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001, presents many issues of first impression regarding the scope of aia trials.
With a final caveat that any given analysis in a 101 abstract idea case is hardly a clear guidepost for future cases arising under 101, the court affirmed the ptab holding that versatas claims are invalid. On april 20, 2007, versata along with related companies versata software, inc. We communicate regularly with our customers to ensure they are receiving. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal. Oct 07, 2014 versata then filed suit against sap in 2007, claiming the latter companys pricing software infringed on patents it holds. Sap had the ability to crossexamine and rebut this evidence. When sap ultimately released its software in october 1998, it bundled the hierarchical. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courts claim construction, and the validity of the 350 patent was not an issue on appeal.
1524 562 91 663 1229 947 902 1376 678 445 1539 1576 224 70 904 904 500 400 675 1473 1093 85 1111 135 1071 240 323 1498 1154 74 553 1094 317 867 940 12 1003 1401 1201 718 1286 1445 396 458 777 549