Dollar SignsIf 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 merely “incidental to” a financial product or service, or, must a claim actually require that something be used to practice, administer, or manage a financial product or service? These are central questions currently under consideration at the CAFC in Unwired Planet LLC v. Google Inc., Nos. 15-1810 and 15-1812 (audio recordings). The PTAB found these facts sufficiently supported CBM review.  However, during recent oral arguments on appeal, the judges of the CAFC panel seemed skeptical, focusing on the text of the underlying statute and its implementing rules.
Continue Reading For CBM Standing, Is “Incidental To” a Financial Product or Service Enough?

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.