Opinion ID: 2816564
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This case, Versata II, is a companion to Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., No. 20141194 (“Versata I”). The cases were consolidated for argument purposes, but are decided separately. For the detailed background and facts, see the opinion in Versata I, No. 14-1194 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015). Briefly, Versata owns U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350 (“’350 patent”). Versata in 2007 sued SAP for, inter alia, infringement of the ’350 patent. The result of the trial was a judgment in favor of Versata. On appeal to this court, in an opinion issued in 2013, we affirmed the damages award, but vacated the injunction as overbroad, and remanded for further proceedings. VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. LEE 3 Meanwhile, in 2012, SAP petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to institute a covered business method (“CBM”) review of the ’350 patent; CBM reviews are one of the new administrative review procedures established in the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011). SAP asked for CBM review on the grounds that certain key claims in the patent were unpatentable and invalid. In January 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) granted SAP’s petition and instituted a covered business method review of the ’350 patent. Then, in March 2013, while the PTAB was conducting its CBM review, Versata sued the USPTO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to set aside the PTAB’s decision to institute CBM review. SAP filed a motion to intervene, which the district court granted. On August 7, 2013, the district court granted the USPTO’s motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and SAP’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction “because the AIA’s express language, detailed structure and scheme for administrative and judicial review, legislative purpose, and nature of administrative action evince Congress’s clear intent to preclude subject matter jurisdiction over the PTAB’s decision to institute patent reexamination [sic] proceedings.” Versata Dev. Corp. v. Rea, 959 F. Supp. 2d 912, 915 (E.D. Va. 2013). The district court also held that “the decision to institute post-grant review is merely an initial step in the PTAB’s process to resolve the ultimate question of patent validity, not a final agency action as contemplated by 5 U.S.C. § 704. . . . Plaintiff retains an alternative adequate remedy through appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” Id. 4 VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP v. LEE Versata appealed the judgment to this court. That appeal is the case now before us, Versata II. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).