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

December 5, 2025

District courts are split on whether a complaint can provide the required knowledge for post-suit indirect and willful infringement in that same lawsuit. Chief Judge Connolly in the District of Delaware recently confirmed that, consistent with his prior opinions, the complaint cannot serve as the basis for knowledge for either a claim of post-suit indirect infringement or a demand for willfulness-based enhanced damages in that lawsuit.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 3, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held that a patentee acted as its own lexicographer to define a claim term even though it did not explicitly define the term. Rather, because the patentee consistently and clearly used two terms interchangeably to describe the same structural feature and did so in all of the embodiments in which the feature appeared, the patentee impliedly gave the term its own, unique definition.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 2, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently held an asserted patent was not entitled to its priority date because the priority application lacked written description support for the asserted claims. In so doing, the court explained that broad disclosures that do not provide reasonably specific support for narrower claims do not meet the written description requirement. The court also considered whether the inventor’s testimony showed they possessed the full scope of the claimed genus at the priority date or whether it was more likely the inventors first became aware of the claimed embodiments from public disclosures of the accused product.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 1, 2025

In a Hatch-Waxman case, the District of Delaware denied a motion for summary judgment seeking to apply the ANDA filing date as the date of the hypothetical negotiation used to calculate reasonable royalty damages. Instead, the court determined that the appropriate date to use for the hypothetical negotiation is the launch date.

...

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.