SAP recently learned that the Eastern District of Texas denied its motion to set aside or stay a district court judgment in favor of Versata for infringement of its U.S. Pat. 6,553,350 (Versata Software, Inc v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00153 (E.D. Tex)). On April 20, 2014, Judge Roy S. Payne dismissed SAP’s motion despite its successful patentability challenge of Versata’s ’350 patent last year in the PTAB. Could SAP’s win in the first covered business method patent review be too late to rid itself of the judgment?
History of the Patent Infringement Suit and PTAB CBM Proceeding
The patent infringement suit by Versata started when it sued SAP for alleged infringement of its U.S. Patent Nos. 6,553,350 and 5,878,400 in 2007 (Versata Software, Inc v. SAP America, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00153 (E.D. Tex)).
A first jury trial was held in 2009, and a second jury trial was held in 2011. In the first trial, the jury found both patents directly infringed and inducement of infringement of one claim of the ’350 patent. Shortly after the first trial, the Court granted JMOL of noninfringement of the ’400 patent. A second trial was held on the ’350 patent and a jury found the ’350 patent infringed, resulting in a $392 million judgment and an injunction dated September 9, 2011 (stayed pending appeal).
SAP filed its petition for covered business method patent review on the first day it was available via the AIA: September 16, 2012. The petition included grounds for challenging the ’350 patent under 35 USC §§ 101, 112, and 102. This was the the first covered business method patent review under the America Invents Act (CBM2012-000001).
About a month later, SAP filed a notice of appeal of the district court decision in the Federal Circuit (filed on October 11, 2011). Briefing was completed some months later, and oral arguments were held on February 4, 2013. About a month before the oral arguments (January 9, 2013), the PTAB instituted trial on the challenges under 35 USC §§ 101 and 102, but declined review on the challenges under 35 USC § 112. So as of January, 2013, the dispute was being pursued both in the Federal Circuit and in the PTAB.
Based on a series of communications between the parties and the PTAB, SAP agreed to drop its challenge under 35 USC § 102 in exchange for an expedited trial on its challenges under 35 USC § 101. The PTAB trial was held on April 17, 2013, where both parties presented their arguments concerning 35 USC § 101.
On May 1, 2013, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court jury decision on infringement and damages awards and vacated part of the trial court’s permanent injunction and remanded for further proceedings based on the opinion.
In June of 2013, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decided that Versata’s U.S. Pat. 6,553,350 was unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
After the Patent Office decided that the claims challenged in the related covered business method patent review were unpatentable, SAP motioned for a stay of proceedings in the Federal Circuit. In a simple, one page document, the Federal Circuit denied that motion for stay on July 5, 2013 without providing further comment or opinion. The Supreme Court denied certiorari of SAP’s petition on January 21, 2014.
Current Stay Motion
A “Motion of SAP America, Inc. and SAP AG For Relief From Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or 60(b) Or For A Stay” was filed on January 21, 2014, and renewed on March 27, 2014 in the E.D. Tex. action. Judge Payne’s denial of the stay observed:
The Court finds that all four of these [stay] factors counsel against a stay in this case. There are no remaining issues in this case to simplify. The trial has been held and the appeal is completed. A stay would clearly unduly prejudice the nonmoving party and provide a clear tactical advantage for the moving party. Moreover, a stay would not reduce the burden of litigation on the parties or the Court. Finally, the fact that the Federal Circuit has already denied Defendants’ request for a stay pending completion of the PTAB proceedings weighs heavily against Defendants’ request. Accordingly, the request for a stay is DENIED.
Judge Payne also denied the request to vacate under Rule 60(b):
Defendants have taken advantage of a full and fair opportunity to litigate the validity of the patent before this Court, before the jury, and before the Federal Circuit, even pursuing a writ to the United States Supreme Court. To hold that later proceedings before the PTAB can render nugatory that entire process, and the time and effort of all of the judges and jurors who have evaluated the evidence and arguments would do a great disservice to the Seventh Amendment and the entire procedure put in place under Article III of the Constitution. The proceedings before the PTAB are not even final at this time, but this Court does not believe that later finality will change this calculus. Indeed, it is the finality of the judgments issued by the Federal Courts that is at stake here. Unlike the situation before the Court inFresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the judgment in this case is final and there are no further issues to be resolved. That fact also clearly distinguishes this case from that before the Fifth Circuit inBros. Inc. v. W. E. Grace Mfg. Co., 320 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1963).
Thus, Judge Payne distinguished the present matter from the Baxtercase at least in part because the Baxter judgment was not final. Apparently, the court is of the opinion that once certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court the district court judgement became final. It will be interesting to see SAP’s response to this decision in the upcoming months.