PTAB Invalidates Business Method Patent Under Recent SCOTUS § 101 Precedent

Sep 25, 2014

Reading Time : 2 min

VirtualAgility asserted U.S. Patent No. 8,095,413 (“the ’413 patent”) in the Eastern District of Texas in January 2013. In May 2013, Salesforce.com filed a petition at the PTAB under the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method (CBM) Patents, which assesses the validity of patents that the board determines are CBMs. To qualify as a CBM that is reviewable under this program—which was instituted in 2012 and will be available until September 15, 2020—the board must determine that the patent (1) does not claim a “technological invention” and (2) is directed to the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. A CBM review can challenge a patent on any grounds for validity, unlike an inter partes review that is limited to anticipation and obviousness challenges via prior­art patents and printed publications only. To institute a CBM review, the petitioner must also show that it is "more likely than not" that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. The PTAB instituted the CBM review in November 2013 after determining that the ’413 patent’s claims met this standard. While the district court denied Salesforce.com’s the request to stay the case during the CBM review, the Federal Circuit reversed upon an interlocutory appeal.

In addition to finding anticipation by a prior art patent, the PTAB found every claim of the ’413 unpatentable under § 101. The PTAB centered its decision on the two­step process for analyzing claims under § 101 set forth by the Supreme Court in Alice. The first step under Alice is to determine whether the claims are directed to a patentineligible subject matter – a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea. The second step is to consider the elements of the claims both “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine if there are additional elements that “’transform the nature of the claim into a patent­eligible application.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1291, 1297 (2012)). The ’413 patent is directed to a method and apparatus for managing collaborative activity (e.g., strategic planning and project management) by using a computer database storing data encoding types of collaborative activity (e.g., a list of goals for a project). Applying the Alice framework, the PTAB found: (1) the challenged claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea, the creation and use of models to aid in processing management information; and (2) the claims lack an inventive concept, as the recitation of general purpose computer equipment to execute the abstract idea does not impose a meaningful limit on the claims.

Salesforce.com, Inc. v. VirtualAgility, Inc., PTAB Case No. CBM2013­00024 (Sept. 16, 2014).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.