Covered Business Method

Subscribe to Covered Business Method via RSS

Solution and strategy path questions and clear planning for ideas in business leadership with a straight path to success choosing the right strategic plan with yellow traffic signs cutting through a maze of highways.

The ability to appeal the determination on institution of an IPR is expressly limited by statute. 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) states: “The determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” An identically-phrased limitation is also applicable to PGR institution decisions at 35 U.S.C. § 324(e), and by extension, to CBMR institution decisions. On its face, this part of the post-grant proceedings schema seems clear and simple: PTAB institution decisions are not to be appealable.
Continue Reading Institution Decisions are Nonappealable. Settled? Maybe Not Yet.

Frustrated ReasoningThe PTAB recently issued an order applying the estoppel provision of the AIA (35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1)) to dismiss a petitioner from covered business method (CBM) patent review proceedings a few days before a consolidated final hearing. Apple Inc. v. Smartflash LLC, CBM2015-00015, Paper 49 (PTAB Nov. 4, 2015) (common order involving CBM2015-00016 and CBM2015-00018). The order is significant because it offers guidance on how the PTAB interprets this provision and applies it to decide whether a petitioner “reasonably could have raised” a patentability challenge clarified by a Supreme Court decision that was not available during an earlier CBM proceeding involving the same parties, the same patent, and the same claims.
Continue Reading PTAB Refuses to Terminate AIA Trial Despite Applying the Estoppel Provision to Dismiss the Petitioner

Stacks of paper at an angle against a blue sky

In August of 2012, the Federal Register published the Patent Office’s estimate of the number of AIA trial petitions the Office then expected to receive in each of the three succeeding fiscal years (each such year ends September 30). In October of 2015, the Patent Office published a report of the number of trial petitions it actually received during these fiscal years. The table below presents this same information:
Continue Reading A 200% Increase in Appeals of Patent Office Decisions to the Federal Circuit

Chicago SkylineWelcome to all of you who are new readers joining us from the IPO Annual Meeting (#IPOAM15). I hope that your time in Chicago was enjoyable and that you will add us to your RSS feeds or bookmark the blog and return often. For those who were unable to attend, the Tuesday panel titled “Post Grant Proceedings at the USPTO” offered a wide-ranging, lively discussion of the current state of post-grant proceedings and proposed solutions to perceived weaknesses in the current system.
Continue Reading IPO Annual Meeting Panel Spars Over Fairness of Current IPR System

In a non-precedential decision issued on August 24, 2015, the Federal Circuit affirmed the final decisions of the PTAB in seven overlapping covered business method patent reviews. In those reviews, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company challenged claims in five patents owned by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company, all directed to pricing automobile insurance based on vehicle use or online adjustment of insurance policies. In the Federal Circuit’s decision—its second addressing the merits of a CBM review—the court affirmed the PTAB’s decisions that certain claims were anticipated and others were obvious, and addressed several issues.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Affirms Seven CBM Decisions

Line of business people in profileIn several recent decisions, the PTAB has clarified the standing required to file petitions seeking Covered Business Method review.  Under the AIA, standing to seek Covered Business Method review is limited to those charged with infringement and their “privies.”  “Privies,” however, do not encompass merely any party with whom the petitioner is in “privity.”  “Privies” is effectively synonymous with “customers”– and, not merely any customers, but customers who the petitioner is legally obligated to indemnify for their alleged infringement. 
Continue Reading Suppliers Can Lack Standing to Seek CBM Review on Behalf of Customers

Blue Paragraph LoupeAcxiom Corp. v. Phoenix Licensing LLC (CBM2015-00068, Paper 23) presents a rare denial of a petition for covered business method review (as of June 25, 2015, CBM petitions are granted at a rate of over 70%).  In denying the petition,  the PTAB stressed that, to have standing, a petitioner must have been sued (or threatened with suit), or be a privy to a party that has been sued (or been threatened with suit).  And “privy” in this context is synonymous with customer.  In other words, suppliers have a right to step in for their customers with a CBM, but not the other way around. 
Continue Reading PTAB Denies CBM Petition for Lack of Standing, Interpreting “Privies” as Customers and Not Suppliers

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 patent” within scope of the PTAB’s authority for a CBM review under Section 18 of the American Invents Act (“AIA”), and that such review by the Court was not precluded by 35 U.S.C. § 324(e), which provides that a decision to institute a CBM review is “final and nonappealable.”
Continue Reading Dissent in SAP v. Versata: Federal Circuit Lacks Authority to Review

Second Chance Just Ahead on Green Billboard.Should a Petitioner who failed to obtain institution be allowed to refile and try again? When the initial failure was in proof that a patent is a covered business method (CBM) patent, the Board allowed a second petition to proceed. After the Board initially denied institution (CBM2014-00084), Motorola Mobility successfully obtained institution of a new CBM petition directed to the same patent (CBM2015-00004) but containing a more extensive section addressing the CBM standard.
Continue Reading PTAB Allows Second Chance to Prove Patent is a Covered Business Method

Win or Draw or LoseThe Federal Circuit recently issued its opinion deciding SAP v. Versata, an appeal of the first PTAB final written decision in a post grant AIA trial. The court’s opinion (split on one issue) is significant because it decides a number of issues that will guide pending and future AIA trials, especially CBM proceedings. Below is a short summary of who—patent owners or petitioners—can claim victory in the court’s five major conclusions. 
Continue Reading Who Benefits from the Federal Circuit’s SAP v. Versata Decision?

Resources & Info

Arthrex and the Supreme Court Resource Center

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court has heard whether 125+ PTAB decisions rendered through October 2019 must be remanded for new decisions. Read about how that issue developed through our post.

Learn more

Our Team

PTABWatch, provided by Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP, analyzes and reports recent developments concerning Post-Grant Proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), including Inter Partes Review (IPR), Post Grant Review (PGR), and Covered Business Method (CBM) proceedings.