Versata Development Group v. SAP America was a closely watched case since it was the first appeal to the Federal Circuit of a Covered Business Methods (CBM) review by the Patent Trials and Appeal Board (PTAB) under Section 18 of the America Invents Act (AIA).
<i>Versata v. SAP </i>: Definitions Are Now the Name of the Game
<i>Versata Development Group v. SAP America</i> was a closely watched case since it was the first appeal to the Federal Circuit of a Covered Business Methods review by the PTAB under Section 18 of the America Invents Act. This article addresses the court's reasoning regarding the definitions of a covered business method patent, and how that reasoning is at odds with norms of statutory construction, technological innovation, and claim drafting.
By
Robert R. SachsThis premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
