Letter of january 17, 2014, from counsel for petitioners received. Apr 14, 20 the district court action began in 2007 when versata sued sap for alleged infringement of its u. The federal circuit affirmed the jurys infringement verdict and damages award but vacated and remanded a permanent. Updates with company comment starting in third paragraph. Each versata company puts customers first with a simple lead objective 100% of customers declaring success. Austinbased versata software has won a patent lawsuit against business software provider sap america and its germanbased parent company sap ag, relating to the pricing technology. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001, presents many issues of first impression regarding the scope of aia trials. 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 desired benefit for the computing environment.
Two recent patent infringement cases involve damages strategies that backfired. District court for the eastern district of texas, and case number 12. Letter of january 16, 2014, from counsel for respondent versata software, inc. The name of the real party in interest if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest represented by me is. Ultimately, the trial court found no infringement of the u. May 01, 20 versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. During the first trial, versatas expert presented evidence that saps software used hierarchical pricing.
On april 20, 2007, versata, along with versata software, inc. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courtsclaimconstruction,and thevalidityofthe350patent was not an. In april 2007, versata sued sap for infringement of u. Mckool smith represented versata in the second trial, and secured a. The district court action began in 2007 when versata sued sap for alleged infringement of its u.
May 06, 20 the panduit factors place no qualitative requirement on the level of demand necessary to show lost profits. After a 2011 trial, a jury found that sap infringed the. Motion for relief from judgment or for a stay denied. 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. United states court of appeals for the federal circuit. The patent in this case contained claims that covered arranging and sorting data to determine a product price. After a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc. Federal circuit affirms lost profits and royalty award finding defendants raised questions of admissibility of plaintiff expert testimony in the improper context because these. Reply of petitioner versata development group, inc.
Case opinion for us federal circuit versata software inc v. The only employees left in versata were the ones in us. Jul 09, 2015 the civil court case is versata software inc. Versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. July 9, 2015 versata i, the court addressed four issues relating to cbm proceedings generally. Beware of risky litigation strategies hhm certified. When sap ultimately released its software in october 1998, it bundled the. After several years of healthy sales, new sales of versata software virtually disappeared after sap launched its competing product. Versata wins patent suit against sap america computer. The panduit factors place no qualitative requirement on the level of demand necessary to show lost profits. May 01, 20 after a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc. Rather, he followed saps own directions on how to implement pricing.
Sap becomes first to test new patent rules in the america. Motion for relief from or a stay of judgment denied. District court, eastern district of texas marshall. 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. July 9, 2015 versata i, the court addressed four issues relating to cbm. After a couple of days down due to a major attack on the servers that host, we are back up with this opinion, which raises some interesting issues. On april 20, 2007, versata along with related companies versata software, inc. Petition for certiorari denied on january 21, 2014. By michael borella section 18 of the leahysmith america invents act. Versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted. Using and configuring the inherent functions of saps software, the expert. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case versata software, inc. Versata argues that its claims recite a specific approach to determining the price of a product on a computer, using hierarchies so as. 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.
Before sap launched its new software, it stated the planned software would be like versatas pricer. The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not martindale. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courts claim construction, and the validity of the 350 patent was not an issue on. Beware of risky litigation strategies hhm certified public. Federal circuit upholds mckool smiths judgment for versata.
Aug 14, 20 before sap launched its new software, it stated the planned software would be like versata s pricer. The patent is also involved in copending litigation, namely versata software inc. A first jury trial was held in 2009, and a second jury trial was held in 2011. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courts claim construction, and the validity of the 350 patent was not an issue on appeal. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001. Particularly, versata disagreed with the ptabs conclusion that the 350 patent was a cbm patent. Versata invests capital and operational excellence to revitalize worldclass software and technology companies for sustainable success. Jun 12, 20 the lower court case is versata software inc. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Jul 16, 2015 versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found infringement and awarded damages. The federal circuit found these claims to be directed toward an abstract idea.
119 992 1548 846 1405 872 457 348 702 198 853 125 888 1363 726 1528 831 957 617 1234 1430 62 1366 1478 1214 242 1592 304 636 766 1533 208 1240 1116 547 1146 65 1218 111 319 387