Tag Archives: Business Method Patent / CBM

Federal Circuit Finds Loyalty Rewards Claims Ineligible

By William (Bill) J. Samore on Posted in Appeals, CBM, Section 101
In cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings Inc., Appeals 2020-1307, -1309 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB final written decision in a CBM proceeding canceling Maritz’s original claims related to a GUI for a customer loyalty program, as ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  The PTAB had granted Maritz’s … Continue Reading

Supreme Court to Review the Arthrex Decision

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Appeals, CBM, Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review
The Supreme Court issued an order on October 13, 2020, granting and consolidating three certiorari petitions seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s judgment in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 941 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2019), reh’g denied, 953 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 2020). We discussed the Federal Circuit’s judgment here and its decision … Continue Reading

The Arthrex Mulligan

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Stays, Trial Procedures
The Federal Circuit, in Arthrex, concluded that the Patent and Trial Appeal Board’s Administrative Patent Judges were unconstitutionally appointed “principal” officers. The court therefore vacated the Board’s decision that canceled claims in an inter partes review and remanded so a new panel of APJs would re-decide the patentability of the claims. What happens, however, when … Continue Reading

Designating Specific Storage Location for Ad Data Not Enough for Patentability

By Tiffany D. Gehrke on Posted in CBM, Covered Business Method, Section 101
In Customedia Techs. v. Dish Network Corp., No. 18-2239, the Federal Circuit affirmed a pair of PTAB judgments in CBM reviews canceling claims directed to the use of “a computer to deliver targeted advertising to a user” as ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. More specifically, the claims recite reserving memory for advertising data in … Continue Reading

A Fine Mess

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
Update (Apr. 3, 2020): The Federal Circuit recently denied rehearing petitions in the Polaris appeals referenced below (see link and link), and also denied the PTO’s request to stay the mandate in the Arthrex appeal (see link). The Federal Circuit recently issued an order denying multiple rehearing petitions in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, … Continue Reading

Haste Makes Waste?

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Appeals, Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, Interferences
If the Federal Circuit’s decision in Arthrex wasn’t sufficiently newsworthy, then look at what lurks in its wake. The day after the decision, the court issued precedential orders indicating that a timely Constitutional challenge apparently must be presented to the court in an opening brief. A few days after those orders, two of the court’s … Continue Reading

Fixing an Appointments Clause Violation

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
In Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 31, 2019), the Federal Circuit concluded that the PTAB’s Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) are “principal” officers and their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce therefore violates the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. The issue arose in an appeal of a decision by a panel … Continue Reading

Trial Practice Guide Updates and Future Fee Increases

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
Today’s Federal Register includes a notice that the Patent Office updated its August 2012 Trial Practice Guide. The Federal Circuit recently noted that the Practice Guide “is a thoughtful and useful resource to which individual Board members and the public might turn for guidance,” but “is not binding on Board panel members.” Application in Internet … Continue Reading

CBM Case Remanded to Determine if Claims are CBM Eligible under Unwired Planet

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Covered Business Method
In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., 841 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (discussed here), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB was using an overly-broad standard for CBM eligibility. Specifically, the PTAB was administering CBM review of patents if they included claims directed to activities that are “incidental to” or “complementary to” a financial activity.… Continue Reading

Supreme Court Decides that IPR Final Decisions Must Address All Challenged Claims

By Sandip H. Patel and Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Covered Business Method, Estoppel, Institution / Denial, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review, Trial Procedures
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its decision in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu, holding that if the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, it must issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of every patent claim challenged by the petitioner. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit’s … Continue Reading

The United States Can Have Standing in AIA Proceedings

By Ryan N. Phelan on Posted in Appeals, Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Section 101, Trial Procedures
Update: On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a decision, 6-3, reversing the Federal Circuit’s judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. The Court held that “a federal agency is not a ‘person’ who may petition for post-issuance review under the AIA.” On August 9, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued an order vacating … Continue Reading

Petitioners Will Pay More for Immensely Popular AIA Trials

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review
In the November 14, 2017, Federal Register, the Patent Office issued its final rule setting and adjusting the fees the Office charges for its products and services, including relatively substantial increases for standard AIA trial fees (as shown below). As a simple example, a petitioner challenging all claims of a patent containing 30 claims will … Continue Reading

PTAB Correctly Construed “Said” and Canceled Claims—but Was the Patent CBM Eligible?

By Michael R. Weiner on Posted in Section 112
In a CBM appeal, TransPerfect Global, Inc. v. Matal, No. 2016-1121 (Fed. Cir. July 12, 2017) (non-prec.), the Federal Circuit determined that the PTAB correctly construed the word “said” in the claim term “said hyperlink,” and determined that TransPerfect’s challenged claims were unpatentable for lack of written description. The court’s claim construction analysis is thorough … Continue Reading

Pay-Per-Click Patent Found Ineligible Under Section 101

By Marshall Gerstein on Posted in Section 101, Sections 102/103
In a final written decision issued on April 24, 2017, the PTAB canceled all four challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,057, directed to detecting invalid and fraudulent clicks in pay-per-click web advertising (Google Inc. v. Zuili, CBM2016-00008 (Paper 56)). The PTAB found all four claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C § 101, and obvious under … Continue Reading

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

By Tiffany D. Gehrke on Posted in Appeals, CBM
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 Affirms Cancellation of Claims Based on Analogous Art

By Matthew R. Carey on Posted in Appeals, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Sections 102/103
In Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s IPR decision that the challenged claims are invalid as obvious and dismissed the PTAB’s CBM review as moot. Petitioner Google filed IPR and CBM petitions challenging claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 7,024,205 (“the  ’205 patent”) owned by Unwired Planet, LLC.  The … Continue Reading

PTAB Should Have Canceled All Challenged Claims in CBM Reviews

By Lynn L. Janulis, Ph.D. on Posted in Appeals, Claim Construction, Covered Business Method, Post Grant Review, Section 101
In Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit reviewed the final written decisions in CBM reviews of three related patents owned by Ameranth, Inc., directed to computerized systems for generating and displaying menus for use in the restaurant industry.  The court determined that the PTAB properly construed all disputed claim terms, … Continue Reading

Guidance on Requesting Motions for Sanctions

By Sharon M. Sintich, Ph.D. on Posted in Covered Business Method, Discovery, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Real Party-in-Interest, Trial Procedures
On November 10, 2016, the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) hosted a panel discussion entitled Ethics in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings at the PTAB with the Honorable Thomas Giannetti, Lead Administrative Patent Judge of the PTAB. The main topic of the discussion was guidance on motions for sanctions.  The rules relating to trial practice before the … Continue Reading

Proposed Rule to Recognize Patent Agent Privilege in PTAB Proceedings

By Jennifer Burnette on Posted in Covered Business Method, Discovery, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review
In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on October 18, 2016, the USPTO proposes to amend the rules of practice before the PTAB to “recognize that, in connection with discovery conducted in certain proceedings at the [USPTO], communications between U.S. patent agents or foreign patent practitioners and their clients are privileged to the same extent … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Declines to Weigh in on AIA Issues

By Julianne M. Hartzell on Posted in Appeals, Trial Procedures
The Supreme Court recently issued orders (Oct. 3 and Oct. 11) denying several petitions for certiorari challenging aspects of AIA trials. As we previously reported, two of those petitions challenged the constitutionality of AIA trials and the Patent Office’s authority to cancel patent rights between private parties. Cooper v. Lee, __ S.Ct. __, 2016 WL … Continue Reading

Patent Office Proposes to Increase AIA Trial Fees

By Sandip H. Patel on Posted in Covered Business Method, Inter Partes Review, IPR, Post Grant Review
In the October 3, 2016, Federal Register, the Patent Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking to adjust various fees the Office charges for its services, including 18% to 56% increases for AIA trial fees (as shown below). According to the notice, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has received more than 4,700 AIA trial … Continue Reading

Federal Circuit Suggest Expansive Interpretation of “Adapted to” in Affirming CBM Cancellation

By Thomas L. Duston on Posted in Claim Construction, Sections 102/103
In a recent non-precedential decision, the Federal Circuit suggested a very expansive interpretation for the oft-used phrase “adapted to.” Relying upon the prosecution history, the Federal Circuit determined that the Board correctly construed claims relating to interactive video programming, and on that basis affirmed the Board’s decision that the claims were anticipated by a prior … Continue Reading
LexBlog