Versata Software, Inc. v. Sap America, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a party \cannot now collaterally attack the claim construction it has agreed to\
• noting that customers did and were expected to perform the function- ality
• noting that customers did and were expected to perform the function- ality
• observing that 9 “[c]ausation of lost profits ‘is a classical jury question,’” but not addressing how the district court should determine whether the anticipated evidence actually presents a 10 “classical” question of causation for a jury to consider
• approving of lost profits calculations that “account[ed] for the costs associated with making those sales”
• discussing the four-factor test required to prove that “but for the infringement, [the patentee] would have made the sales that were made by the infringer”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).