Jul 16, 2015 versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted. The patent is also involved in copending litigation, namely versata software inc. Petition for certiorari denied on january 21, 2014. Each versata company puts customers first with a simple lead objective 100% of customers declaring success. Versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. When sap ultimately released its software in october 1998, it bundled the. Aug 14, 20 before sap launched its new software, it stated the planned software would be like versata s pricer. Particularly, versata disagreed with the ptabs conclusion that the 350 patent was a cbm patent. The only employees left in versata were the ones in us. 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.
July 9, 2015 versata i, the court addressed four issues relating to cbm. July 9, 2015 versata i, the court addressed four issues relating to cbm proceedings generally. Updates with company comment starting in third paragraph. May 01, 20 after a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of versata software, inc. Letter of january 16, 2014, from counsel for respondent versata software, inc. Ultimately, the trial court found no infringement of the u. Versata and sap disagreed on how these provisions should be interpreted. Rather, he followed saps own directions on how to implement pricing. Before sap launched its new software, it stated the planned software would be like versatas pricer. Federal circuit affirms lost profits and royalty award finding defendants raised questions of admissibility of plaintiff expert testimony in the improper context because these.
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. United states court of appeals for the federal circuit. District court, eastern district of texas marshall. Using and configuring the inherent functions of saps software, the expert. The federal circuit affirmed the jurys infringement verdict and damages award but vacated and remanded a permanent. 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. 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 district court action began in 2007 when versata sued sap for alleged infringement of its u.
Beware of risky litigation strategies hhm certified. After a jury verdict of infringement with an award of damages in favor of 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. Versata had sued sap for patent infringement in district court. Versata invests capital and operational excellence to revitalize worldclass software and technology companies for sustainable success. On april 20, 2007, versata along with related companies 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 to enable the desired benefit for the computing environment. May 01, 20 versatas expert did not alter or modify saps code in order to achieve the claimed functionality. Of note, sap did not appeal the district courtsclaimconstruction,and thevalidityofthe350patent was not an.
The patent in this case contained claims that covered arranging and sorting data to determine a product price. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001, presents many issues of first impression regarding the scope of aia trials. Jul 09, 2015 the civil court case is versata software inc. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury found infringement and awarded damages. Versata data development group, ptab case cbm201200001. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. 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. 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. On april 20, 2007, versata, along with versata software, inc. Beware of risky litigation strategies hhm certified public. Mckool smith represented versata in the second trial, and secured a. Case opinion for us federal circuit versata software inc v. During the first trial, versatas expert presented evidence that saps software used hierarchical pricing.
The federal circuit found these claims to be directed toward an abstract idea. By michael borella section 18 of the leahysmith america invents act. Ptab 20 by michael borella in an example of judicial reasoning rolling downhill, the u. Jun 12, 20 the lower court case is versata software inc. Federal circuit upholds mckool smiths judgment for versata. Austin, txmarketwire 051411 austinbased versata software, inc. The panduit factors place no qualitative requirement on the level of demand necessary to show lost profits. Reply of petitioner versata development group, inc. Two recent patent infringement cases involve damages strategies that backfired. 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 views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not martindale. Motion for relief from judgment or for a stay denied. Versata argues that its claims recite a specific approach to determining the price of a product on a computer, using hierarchies so as. Parties, docket activity and news coverage of federal case versata software, inc. District court for the eastern district of texas, and case number 12. A first jury trial was held in 2009, and a second jury trial was held in 2011.
1399 1022 1361 1108 1159 905 601 613 302 597 1452 1069 889 449 882 58 1247 625 389 334 44 528 904 1291 274 715 678 1486 23