Posts Tagged: "covered business method review"

District court filings were substantially lulled this week, with about a third of what’s normal—33—filed to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s 32 petitions, propped up by lithium-ion battery company Amprius filing eight inter partes reviews (IPRs) against the Japanese Softbank (via Fortress IP)-owned Traverse CF non-practicing entity (NPE). CBM Sunset: The little-used covered business methods (CBM) program sunsets today. As evidenced by the lack of any substantial rush to file any at the last minute, the proceeding had for years been eclipsed both by Federal Circuit rulings narrowing the scope of the program and by the explosion and success of subject matter challenges in the district courts. While there have been rumors of a last-minute attempt to revive the program, for now it seems destined for the dustbin of history.

Two weeks before the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (CBM) Program, implemented in 2012 under the America Invents Act (AIA), is set to expire, a special interest group dubbed the “Quality Patents Coalition”, is reportedly urging Congress to extend the program for one year. The CBM program is currently set to expire on September 16, 2020. In June, in response to reports of the imminent request for an extension, a number of organizations submitted a letter to Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) arguing that “CBM should expire of disinterest, if not to eliminate a proceeding of questionable use, of illegitimate vintage, and of unjust intent.”

On June 30, New Vision Gaming & Development filed a corrected appellant brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging two covered business method (CBM) reviews conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) which canceled all claims of New Vision’s patents covering a gaming invention. Among other things, New Vision argues that the PTAB is constitutionally flawed, that its structure creates financial incentives for administrative patent judges (APJs) to grant validity reviews in a way that destroys due process for patent owners, and that the PTAB’s APJs have neither the judicial independence nor the oversight of Article III courts necessary to address the impermissible appearance of bias at that tribunal.

With 27 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filings—25 inter partes reviews (IPRs), one post grant review (PGR) and one covered business method review (CBM), the first in months—this week’s numbers rested roughly within the new normal, with district court complaints flatlining at around 70 (i.e., 68 this week). That included five petitions on five patents owned by SAP brought by the Teradata corporation; on the District Court side, lots of small-potatoes NPE campaigns complemented a number of WSOU filings against their latest target, Dell EMC, as well as a few small company disputes, and one suit against the Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada.

On October 9, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a final written decision in a covered business method (CBM) review which invalidated all 38 claims of Nasdaq’s U.S. Patent No. 7747506, Recipient Status Indicator System and Method, challenged by Miami International Holdings (MIAX), on Section 101 grounds for being directed to unpatentable subject matter. The decision is the latest in a series of CBM reviews at the PTAB which stem from a district court patent infringement proceeding targeting fintech technologies employed by MIAX’s technological securities trading platform.

The Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision on Wednesday reversing-in-part, vacating and remanding a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that had found certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,908,842 (the ’842 patent) subject to covered business method review, patent ineligible and unpatentable for obviousness. SIPCO LLC v. Emerson Electric (Fed. Cir., Sept. 25, 2019). Judge Reyna dissented in part. In a footnote, the Court distinguished its reasoning from its finding in the garage door-opener case, Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., in which the Court found claims reciting wireless communication of status information about a movable barrier operator to be directed to an abstract idea. “Unlike in Chamberlain, SIPCO’s claimed invention does not simply use “well understood,” off-the-shelf wireless technology for its intended purpose of communicating information,” said the Court.

On August 15, Trading Technologies International, Inc. (TT) petitioned the Federal Circuit again for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc of its recent decision that found TT’s Ladder Tool invention to be subject to the USPTO’s Covered Business Method (CBM) review process and abstract under Section 101. TT argues that the PTAB did not follow the precedent of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) when reviewing its patent claims. The latest brief relates to U.S. Patent No. 7,725,382 (the ‘382 patent), while TT’s request for rehearing filed July 31 related to U.S. Patent No. 7,693,768.

It’s tough to fight on after losing an Alice appeal, but that’s just what most applicants are doing. An “Alice appeal” is an appeal of a patent rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of statutory subject matter. The major field of these patents is business methods (class 705). More than half of business method applicants that are losing Alice appeals are taking action to keep their applications alive. The reasons for renewed hopes include the new 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance that came out in January, as well as the current movement in Congress to clarify 35 U.S.C. 101. With hope on the horizon, now is not the time to give up. The table below gives some recent examples of how both large and small applicants are continuing to prosecute their patent applications after losing an Alice appeal.

In Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, Interactive Brokers LLC (2018-1063), the Federal Circuit agreed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that the contested claims of Trading Technologies International, Inc’s patents for graphical user interfaces (GUI) for electronic trading, numbers 7,533,056, 7,212,999, and 7,904,374, were eligible for covered business method (CBM) review and also patent ineligible. The claims at issue were claims 1–15 of the ’056 patent, claims 1–35 of the ’999 patent, and claims 1–36 of the ’374 patent. To be eligible for CBM review, a patent must claim “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, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.” In previous Federal Circuit cases, Trading Technologies (TT) patents had been determined not eligible for CBM review as they were technological inventions or were found patent eligible. The court rejected the argument that this weighed in favor of finding similarly in the present case. “We are not bound by non-precedential decisions at all, much less ones to different patents, different specifications, or different claims,” wrote the Court.

The PTAB not only assented to Mirror Imaging’s suggestion that a five-page brief be entered in advance of the hearing but added that parties may submit one brief for each of the four CBM review proceedings which were petitioned by Fidelity… This could be a pivotal moment in the history of the PTAB specifically, and the USPTO more generally. If Director Iancu can achieve the goal of having the Patent Office speak with one voice, with patent examiners and the PTAB all following the same law and guidance, he will have achieved a united Patent Office that has been elusive, but desperately needed.

Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 summary judgment in Chart Trading Development, LLC v. Interactive Brokers LLC, affirming the invalidation of patent claims owned by Chart Trading in covered business method (CBM) proceedings instituted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In issuing the summary affirmance of the PTAB, the Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Pauline Newman, S. Jay Plager and Kimberly Moore declined the opportunity to comment on Chart Trading’s arguments on the PTAB’s alleged due process violations by changing the construction of a key term in its final written decision… If the government can award a franchise and that franchise can be taken away in a manner that violates the APA, what is the point in seeking the government franchise in the first place? If the Court charged with making sure the agency that strips government franchises is following the rules is going to decide cases of such importance with only one word — Affirmed — one has to question whether a government franchise is at all a worthwhile pursuit.

Nasdaq ISE’s motion to disqualify Fish & Richardson was made pursuant to 37 CFR 11.109, which prevents a practitioner from representing a party adverse to a former client in substantially similar proceedings; this duty is imputed to the practitioner’s law firm under 37 CFR 11.110. In its motion, Nasdaq argued that the PTAB should adopt the magistrate judge’s finding that the defense of MIAX, including the CBM reviews challenging the validity of the patents asserted against MIAX, is a collaborative effort and Fish & Richardson should be disqualified because of the conflict of interest. The particular patent-at-issue in this CBM review was filed and prosecuted during the period in which Fish represented Nasdaq. “Because patent-eligibility, this sole issue in this CBMR, is evaluated from the time of invention… the confidential factual information Fish obtained from Nasdaq is material to the issues in this [CBM review],” the motion reads.

The case will ask the highest court in the nation to determine whether the federal government is a person who may petition the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute patent validity review proceedings under the terms of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).

“It seems self-evident that the same patent contested in different tribunals should have its meaning – its boundaries – determined using the same standard,” Director Iancu said when discussing the final rules implementing the Phillips standard at the PTAB… Those few who were not pleased by the change have cited a believe that the change to the Phillips standard would usher in a return to lower quality patents. With a bit of a confrontational tone, Director Iancu took issue with that, finding the argument without merit.