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. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001, presents many. In its petition to the uspto, sap alleged that the patent was a covered business method patent. Saps expert even prepared an alternative lost profit model but sap chose not to present this evidence to the jury. 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. Rather, he followed saps own directions on how to implement pricing functionality in its. The case was remanded for the district court to enter an order conforming to our opinion. Particularly, versata disagreed with the ptabs conclusion that the 350 patent was a cbm patent.
The patent is also involved in copending litigation, namely. Sap began offering customized pricing as part of its. 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. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courtsclaimconstruction,and thevalidityofthe350patent was not an. The patent is also involved in copending litigation, namely versata software inc.
Jun 12, 20 versata sold its software, called pricer, in the late 1990s to customers such as international business machines corp. Ptab 20 by michael borella in an example of judicial reasoning rolling downhill, the u. 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. The worlds first software factory powers all versata companies for sustainable innovation with.
Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case versata software, inc. Versata sold pricer either as a package with other versata software or as a bolton addition to enterprise systems offered by companies like sap. Versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted. The 350 patent is owned by the appellant, versata development group, inc. Oct 07, 2014 versata then filed suit against sap in 2007, claiming the latter companys pricing software infringed on patents it holds. May 01, 20 versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. 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 is a businessrules based application development environment running in java ee. February 22, 2008 privately held versata enterprises, inc.
Versata invests capital and operational excellence to revitalize worldclass software and technology companies for sustainable success. May 14, 2011 austin, txmarketwire 051411 austinbased versata software, inc. The federal circuit affirmed the jurys infringement verdict and damages award but vacated and remanded a permanent. Jurors also found that saps products, which were redesigned in may 2010, continued to infringe. Sap provides software solutions for thousands of companies, governments, and nonprofits around the globe. We communicate regularly with our customers to ensure they are receiving. Patent and trademark offices patent trial and appeal. Versata showed demand for its product before sap entered the market, and it showed continued demand for the patented feature during the damages period. Versata provides enterprise software solutions that deliver business results, performance and scalability while dramatically reducing it spending. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found infringement and awarded damages.
Letter of january 16, 2014, from counsel for respondent versata software, inc. The district court judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals for federal circuit versata software. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. 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. German software company sap fined millions by us court dw. Announced the acquisition of nuvo network management inc.
United states court of appeals for the federal circuit. The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not martindalehubbell. Ultimately, the trial court found no infringement of the u. We communicate regularly with our customers to ensure they are receiving the value they expect from our software. In the 1990s, versata developed pricing software sap customers used along with their erp enterpriseresourceplanning implementations. Versata owns the 350 patent and had previously sued sap for infringing the patent. Sap seeks to exclude expert testimony relating to both of versata.
District court for the eastern district of texas, and case number 12. Versata, who had sued sap for infringing the patent. Apparently, sap had not raised the issue of patent ineligibility under 35 u. May 01, 20 after a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc. Case opinion for us federal circuit versata software inc v. Sap later developed its own brand of pricing software and. Before sap launched its new software, it stated the planned software would be like versatas pricer. Each versata company puts customers first with a simple lead objective 100% of customers declaring success. Each versata company puts customers first with a simple lead. We want to understand your needs and make your organization successful. Austin, txmarketwire 051411 austinbased versata software, inc.
Of note, sap did not appeal the district courts claim construction, and the validity of the 350 patent was not an issue on appeal. 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. Nuvo was a canadianbased managed service providersoftware provider. 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. The district court action began in 2007 when versata sued sap for alleged infringement of its u. Court of appeals for the federal circuit rader, prost, moore affirmedinpart, vacatedinpart and remandedinpart the district courts judgment that sap did not infringe u. Rather, he followed saps own directions on how to implement pricing functionality in its software and activated functions already present in the software.
Versata and selectica are engaged in a lawsuit, styled versata software inc. Court of appeals for the federal circuit rader, prost, moore affirmedinpart, vacatedinpart and remandedinpart the. Letter of january 15, 2014, from counsel for petitioners received. Sap had the ability to crossexamine and rebut this evidence.
After a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc. On april 20, 2007, versata along with related companies versata software, inc. In its petition to the uspto, sap alleged that the patent was a covered. 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.
Versata sold its software, called pricer, in the late 1990s to customers such as international business machines corp. Sap and versata software have abruptly settled a longrunning patent dispute that dates back to 2007, and of late had sap facing the prospect. When sap ultimately released its software in october 1998, it bundled the hierarchical. Versata then filed suit against sap in 2007, claiming the latter companys pricing software infringed on patents it holds. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal. Jul 16, 2015 versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted. On april 20, 2007, versata, along with versata software, inc. Versata marketed a successful product, pricer, sold as a package with other versata software or as an addition to enterprise systems offered by companies like sap. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001, presents many issues of first impression regarding the scope of aia trials.
713 1021 941 1164 1168 1236 1329 19 248 108 616 287 980 1374 162 770 963 806 1289 360 396 1001 21 1178 881 593 588 95 1447 768 188 814 227 867 52 264 7 336