CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. has invalidated all of a competitor's relevant patent claims in CBM, ending a decade of litigation. Thus, the first two petitioners have won outright in the first two CBM decisions. The first decision found for SAP America, Inc. on all claims. Now, CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. has likewise won, with the Board cancelling every claim pending in the litigation. See CRS Adv. Techs., Inc. v. Frontline Techs., Inc., CBM2012-00005, Paper 66 (PTAB Jan. 21, 2014).
The Board found the six asserted claims invalid for claiming an abstract idea. The patent, relating to "human resources management," described "automating the performance of substitute fulfillment" and included a method and system claiming variously a database, information, an Internet communication link, a website, an organization worksite location, and one or more computers.
In analyzing § 101, the Board held that the machine-or-transformation test, while not the only test available, applied in this case. The Board continued: "cases have found claims to be directed to patent-ineligible subject matter where computing technology did not limit the scope of the claims meaningfully." Analogizing the cases of Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada; Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber; and Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., the Board found the process claims lacked particularized technology integral to the claimed subject matter. They found the "generic computer technology" to be more akin to 'computer-aided' as in the claims of Dealertrack, and the phrases 'transaction database' and 'transmitting information' to be akin to the unaccepted claims of Accenture. Thus, the Board held the method claims invalid.
Regarding the system claims, the Board held that including a "database" and a "system" "do not necessarily change the patent-eligibility analysis," but rather, since the claims mirrored method claim 3, they fell with that claims' fate. Thus, the Board cancelled the six asserted claims, ending almost ten years of litigation for CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc.
The decision capped a long journey for CRS. On February 10, 2004, Frontline sued CRS for patent infringement on the patent. Over ten years, the parties appeared in courts, the patent office central reexamination unit, and finally before the Board. In February 2013, the district court stayed the case—for a second time and close to trial—in light of the CBM proceeding. CRS v. Frontline emphasizes the effectiveness of post-grant review procedures when used strategically.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
