SAS Institute v. ComplementSoft
Full2013-00226 · US7110936B2
In plain English: The Board reviewed these claims and cancelled some but not all of them. A later appeal affirmed part of that result and reversed, vacated, or remanded the rest.
How to read this page: start with the Case brief above, use (the small numbered links) to open the exact source page they cite, then use Reference material further down for claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground detail.
Mixed outcome
The Board cancelled eight of nine instituted claims and spared claim 4, in the proceeding that would make partial institution unlawful.[19][28]
ComplementSoft sues SAS in the Northern District of Illinois September 14, 2012·SAS petitions for inter partes review of all sixteen claims March 29, 2013·Board institutes on nine claims and declines the rest August 12, 2013·Final written decision cancels eight claims, spares claim 4 August 6, 2014·Federal Circuit affirms constructions, vacates the claim 4 ruling June 10, 2016·Supreme Court holds institution is all-or-nothing April 24, 2018
- The '936 patent claims an integrated development environment for data manipulation languages, with a visualizer that mirrors edits between code and graphical flow diagrams.[13]
- SAS put up nine grounds; the Board instituted five of them, covering nine of the sixteen challenged claims.[5][8]
- Trial turned on two claim terms, and the Board kept the constructions it had announced at institution.[21]
- The appeal reached the Federal Circuit in 2016 and the Supreme Court two years later, and each changed the case.[23][27]
SAS made inter partes review all-or-nothing: the petition, not the Director, sets the proceeding's contours.[30]
- Opinion analysis: Justices reject Patent and Trademark Office's rules for partial consideration of petitions for inter partes review
SCOTUSblog · April 25, 2018
- SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu: Raising the Stakes to an All-Or-Nothing Game at the PTAB
Banner & Witcoff IP Alert · April 30, 2018
- SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu: The Statute is Hereby Clear
George Washington Law Review · May 7, 2018
Reference material
Claim-by-claim and ground-by-ground records underlying the brief above.
| Claim | Ground 1: §103 — Coad US6851107, Oracle Primer, Oracle8 Primer | Ground 2: §103 — Antis US5572650, Coad US6851107 | Ground 3: §103 — Antis US5572650, Coad US6851107, Burkwald US6356285 | Ground 4: §103 — Antis US5572650, Coad US6851107, Eick US5937064 | Ground 5: §103 — Antis US5572650, Coad US6851107, Building Applications |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Unpatentable[1] | Unpatentable[1] | — | — | — |
| 3 | — | Unpatentable[1] | — | — | — |
| 4 | — | — | Not shown unpatentable[2] | — | — |
| 5 | — | Unpatentable[1] | — | — | — |
| 6 | — | Unpatentable[1] | — | — | — |
| 7 | — | — | — | Unpatentable[1] | — |
| 8 | — | Unpatentable[1] | — | — | — |
| 9 | — | — | — | — | Unpatentable[1] |
| 10 | — | Unpatentable[1] | — | — | — |
- [1] Paper 38 at 41 (conclusion)
- [2] Paper 38 at 31, 41 (conclusion)
- Ground 6: §102Not instituted
Coad US6851107
Claims 1
Paper 9 at 21; decline list item (2) - Ground 7: §102Not instituted
Antis US5572650
Claims 1-3, 5
Paper 9 at 21-22; decline item (3) spans a page break, excerpt omitted - Ground 8: §103Not instituted
Antis US5572650, Coad US6851107
Claims 2, 11-12, 15-16
Paper 9 at 21; decline list item (1), remainder of petitioned ground (d) not instituted - Ground 9: §103Not instituted
Antis US5572650, Coad US6851107, Corda US5758122
Claims 13
Paper 9 at 21; decline list item (1) - Ground 10: §103Not instituted
Antis US5572650, Coad US6851107, Access 97 Visual Basic
Claims 14
Paper 9 at 21; decline list item (1)
- Paper 1Paper 1 · Petition
- US7110936Other
- Paper 9Paper 9 · Institution Decision
- Paper 38Paper 38 · Final Written Decision
- 2015-1346/47Federal Circuit Opinion
- 584 U.S. 357 (16-969)Supreme Court Opinion