## Facts

- Versata owned U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350, directed to determining product prices using hierarchical “who” (purchasing organizations) and “what” (products) groupings with pricing adjustments (e.g., discounts).
- Versata sued SAP for infringement in district court; while that litigation was ongoing, SAP petitioned for covered business method (CBM) review under AIA § 18.
- The PTAB instituted CBM review, concluding the patent qualified as a CBM and was not excluded as a “technological invention.”
- In a final written decision, the PTAB cancelled key claims as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to an abstract idea implemented with conventional computer technology.
- Versata appealed, challenging the Federal Circuit’s ability to review the CBM determination, the CBM classification, the PTAB’s claim constructions, the availability of § 101 in CBM review, and the merits of the § 101 ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether the Federal Circuit may review, on appeal from a CBM final written decision, the PTAB’s threshold determination that the patent is a CBM and not a “technological invention.”
2. Whether the ’350 patent claims a “covered business method patent” and falls outside the statutory “technological invention” exclusion.
3. Whether the PTAB’s claim constructions should be affirmed.
4. Whether § 101 is a permissible ground for unpatentability in CBM review under AIA § 18.
5. Whether the challenged claims are patent-ineligible under § 101 under the Alice/Mayo framework.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision cancelling the challenged claims.
- The court held it could review issues resolved in the CBM proceeding that were part of, or predicates to, the final written decision, including the CBM classification.
- The court agreed the ’350 patent was a CBM patent and did not qualify as a “technological invention.”
- The court affirmed the PTAB’s claim constructions.
- The court held § 101 is an available ground in CBM review.
- Applying Alice/Mayo, the court held the claims were directed to the abstract idea of determining a price and lacked an inventive concept beyond conventional computer implementation.

## Legal Principles

- On appeal from a CBM final written decision, the Federal Circuit may review legal determinations made in the proceeding that bear on the Board’s authority and the merits of cancellation, even if related to institution-stage questions.
- A patent qualifies as a CBM if it claims data processing or similar operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service; the “technological invention” exclusion requires more than reciting generic computer implementation.
- In CBM review, § 101 is a permissible ground for unpatentability because it is a “condition for patentability” that may be raised under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b)(2), as incorporated by AIA § 18.
- Under Alice/Mayo, claims directed to price determination and management are abstract where they reflect longstanding commercial practices organized in rules or hierarchies; implementing such logic on conventional computer components does not supply an inventive concept.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s CBM cancellation of Versata’s pricing-hierarchy claims, confirming that § 101 is available in CBM review and that business-method pricing logic implemented with conventional computer technology is patent-ineligible when it amounts to an abstract idea without an inventive concept.


Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)