{"id":2102,"date":"2015-08-21T12:35:53","date_gmt":"2015-08-21T16:35:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cpip.gmu.edu\/?p=2102"},"modified":"2026-04-07T17:07:17","modified_gmt":"2026-04-07T17:07:17","slug":"alicestorm-july-is-smoking-hot-hot-hotand-versata-is-not-not-not","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uakron.edu\/ualawip\/2015\/08\/21\/alicestorm-july-is-smoking-hot-hot-hotand-versata-is-not-not-not\/","title":{"rendered":"[Archived Post] #AliceStorm: July is Smoking Hot, Hot, Hot\u2026and Versata is Not, Not, Not"},"content":{"rendered":"

The following guest post from Robert R. Sachs<\/a>, Partner at Fenwick & West LLP<\/a>, first appeared on the Bilski Blog<\/a>, and it is reposted here with permission.<\/em><\/p>\n

By Robert R. Sachs<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>July invokes images of hot days, cool nights, and fireworks. When it comes to #Alicestorm, the fireworks are happening in the courts, with the Federal Circuit lighting up the sky.<\/p>\n

\"Table1\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In just the first ten days of July, there have been twelve<\/em> decisions on patent eligibility\u2014more decisions in the first ten days of any month since the dawn of time. At this pace, we could see some twenty to thirty decisions this month. #AliceStorm is accelerating.<\/p>\n

Here are the numbers by motion type:<\/p>\n

\"Motions\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Here are the numbers for all the courts, by tribunal:<\/p>\n

\"Courts\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, here’s a summary of the number of Section 101 decisions by the various judges on the Federal Circuit since Alice<\/em>:<\/p>\n

\"Fed<\/a><\/p>\n

I leave the interpretation of this graph as an exercise for the reader.<\/p>\n

Versata: The Federal Circuit is Large and In Charge<\/strong><\/h2>\n

While the indices are steady, the recent decisions are very interesting. Most importantly, there have been two Federal Circuit decisions in July, Versata Development Group v. SAP Am., Inc.<\/em> and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)<\/em>, both of which found the patents in suit ineligible. Today, I’ll focus on Versata<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Versata<\/em> was a closely watched appeal since it was the first appeal to the Federal Circuit of a Covered Business Methods review. The Court covered a lot of ground including 1) whether it could review PTAB’s determination that Versata’s patent was eligible for CBM review, 2) what is the meaning of “covered business method patent,” including whether USPTO’s definitions of a “financial product or service” and “technological invention” were correct, 3) what is the appropriate standard for claim construction, broadest reasonable interpretation or one correct construction, and 4) an evaluation of the merits. Briefly, the court decided:<\/p>\n