CAFC addresses "business method" patent issues in Versata v. SAP

The outcome of the Versata case:


With regard to the issues in the case, we conclude:

• On appeal in a § 18 case to this court of a
final written decision by the PTAB,
as a general principle we may review issues de-
cided during the PTAB review process, re-
gardless of when they first arose in the process, if they
are part of or a predicate to the ultimate merits.

• The invention claimed in the ’350 patent is
a covered business method patent as that
term is understood, and it does not fall
within the meaning of a “technological in-
vention.”

• The PTAB’s claim constructions are af-
firmed.

• The requirements of § 101 of the Patent Act
apply in a §18 review.

• The ’350 patent claims at issue were
properly held invalid under § 101



Judge Hughes wrote separately:


In reaching that conclusion,
however, the majority impermissibly
expands this court’s jurisdiction and our
scope of review to second-guess the Board’s initial deter-
mination that the patent at issue
is a “covered business method patent.”
Our review of that question is barred by
the plain language, structure, and purpose
of the post-grant review provisions; and by our recent precedent
interpreting an identical statutory bar on review in the
inter partes review provisions.




Link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1194.Opinion.7-8-2015.1.PDF