Search Results for: Versata

Dissent in SAP v. Versata: Federal Circuit Lacks Authority to Review Whether Challenged Patent is Subject to CBM Proceedings

As reported earlier, the Federal Circuit recently affirmed the PTAB’s final written decision in SAP v. Versata, No. 2014-1194 (Fed. Cir. 2015), its first final written decision in a CBM review. As part of that decision, the Court determined that it had jurisdiction to determine whether the patent at issue was a “covered business method … Continue Reading

CBM Eligibility: Patent Must Have a Claim that Contains, However Phrased, a Financial Activity Element

Update: The Federal Circuit’s decision in this case was vacated as moot, on the basis that the challenged claims had been canceled in a separate IPR proceeding. PNC Bank Nat’l Assoc. v. Secure Axcess, LLC, 138 S. Ct. 1982 (2018). A patent that is merely incidental to a financial activity is not sufficient to render that … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Declares Unreviewable PTAB’s Refusal to Apply Assignor Estoppel

The Federal Circuit continues to declare aspects of the PTAB’s work to be beyond its review.  Most recently, in Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., v. Athena Automation Ltd., Case Nos. 2015-1726, 2015-1727 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23, 2016), the Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, concluded that it lacked authority to question the PTAB’s refusal to … Continue Reading

PTAB Standard for Qualifying CBM Patent Reviews is Now Set

The AIA provides for the post-grant review of “covered business method patents,” which are defined as: a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. AIA §18(d)(1). The PTAB was left to its own devices … Continue Reading

For CBM Standing, Is “Incidental To” a Financial Product or Service Enough?

If a patented mobile phone app can locate a nearby ATM machine, are the claims of that patent subject to CBM review because ATMs are used in financial transactions? What if the claim could cover a business entity that, incidentally, might also push advertisements to a mobile phone? Is it enough that a claim is … Continue Reading

PTAB Concludes Database Patent Claims Are Ineligible under Section 101 Despite Enfish

Notwithstanding the Federal Circuit’s Enfish warning that “we do not read Alice to broadly hold that all improvements in computer-related technology are inherently abstract,” in Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., the PTAB cancelled claims 1-8 and 18-53 of U.S. Patent No. 6,321,201 under Section 101 because the claims relating to a data security system for … Continue Reading

Called Third Strike, Is the PTO Director Out? Federal Circuit Again Rejects Intervenor’s Argument that it Lacks Jurisdiction to Review Qualifications for CBM Review

The Federal Circuit has rejected for the third time efforts by the Director of the PTO to preclude appellate review of whether challenged patent claims were properly deemed “covered business methods,” and thereby subject to CBM review.  Previously, in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., the Federal Circuit concluded that its jurisdiction to … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB’s Victory on Invalidity Ground the Petition Did Not Even Present

In SightSound Techs., LLC v. Apple Inc., Appeal Nos. 2015-1159, -1160 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2015), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s final written decisions in two CBM patent review proceedings that canceled claims in SightSound’s patents as being obvious over prior art (referred to as the CompuSonics publications), even though Apple did not present … Continue Reading

LexBlog