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

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 20, 2026

The Federal Circuit recently addressed whether the PTO must conduct notice‑and‑comment rulemaking before issuing instructions that guide how the Board should exercise discretion at the institution stage of IPRs. The court held that no such rulemaking is required. Instructions to the Board regarding its use of the Director’s delegated discretionary authority not to institute review are merely general statements of policy exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking.  

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 18, 2026

The District Court for the District of Delaware recently invalidated claims directed to a panoramic objective lens for lack of enablement, holding the claims impermissibly recited a single element in means‑plus‑function form. Under § 112, ¶ 6, “[a]n element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function….” By its plain terms, the statute permits means‑plus‑function claiming only in the context of a “combination.” In other words, a claim may not consist solely of a single means‑plus‑function element. Claims drafted as a single means are invalid for lack of enablement as a matter of law.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 13, 2026

In an ANDA litigation, the District of Delaware recently denied the defendants’ motion to compel the production of correspondence between the plaintiffs’ testifying expert and a third-party analyst who had performed experiments and provided data used by the testifying expert. The court found that the scope of material sought by the motion was overbroad and disproportionate to the needs of the case.

...

Read More

© 2026 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.