United States: Federal Circuit Affirms First Patent Trial And Appeal Board (PTAB) Decision In A Covered Business Method Review

Last Updated: July 17 2015
Article by Mark P. Wine and James Maune

​On July 9, 2015, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") affirmed the first Patent Trial and Appeals Board ("PTAB") decision concerning Covered Business Method ("CBM") reviews, which were created by Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act ("AIA").  Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., Case No. 2014-1194.  The PTAB had ruled two years earlier that claims 17 and 26-29 of U.S. Patent No. 6,553,350, assigned to Versata Development Group, Inc., were unpatentable as abstract ideas under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Versata appealed.

The Federal Circuit decision resolves several important issues related to CBM reviews.  Among other things, the court decided that (1) broadest reasonable interpretation is the proper standard for claim construction in a CBM review; (2) the PTAB may consider § 101 patentability challenges in a CBM review; (3) the CAFC may decide, on appeal from a CBM review, whether the challenged patent is eligible for CBM review; and (4) the CAFC may consider, on appeal from a CBM review, whether the PTAB correctly decided certain other issues implicating the scope of the PTAB's decision-making authority.

Based on these rulings, the CAFC proceeded to consider the merits of the PTAB's determination that the challenged claims of the ʼ350 patent were invalid under § 101, and it affirmed.  Judge Hughes dissented in part, arguing that the CAFC was exceeding its jurisdiction by reviewing whether the challenged patent was eligible for CBM review.

Some Decisions of the PTAB in Instituting a CBM Review Are Reviewable in an Appeal From a Final Written Decision

The panel majority held that the CAFC, when deciding an appeal from a final written decision of the PTAB in a CBM review, has jurisdiction to review issues decided by the PTAB that implicate the scope of the PTAB's authority—even if those issues were only expressly addressed by the PTAB in the context of deciding to institute review.  SAP America and the USPTO, as intervenor, argued that 35 U.S.C. § 324(e) precludes such review because it states that "[t]he determination by the [PTAB] whether to institute a post-grant review under this section shall be final and nonappealable."  The panel majority disagreed, holding that the statute does not preclude appellate review of limits on the PTAB's authority to enter a "'final written decision' invalidating a patent."  The majority explained that "[i]nstitution and invalidation are two distinct actions by the PTAB."  In an appeal from a final written decision, review of an issue affecting the PTAB's authority to invalidate a patent is not precluded "just because the agency chooses, or even follows a congressional directive, to decide an issue determining final-action authority at the initiation stage and then does not revisit the issue later."  Foreclosing review of such PTAB decisions would "run counter to our long tradition of judicial review of government actions that alter the legal rights of an affected person, a hallmark of the distinction between (generally reviewable) final agency action and (generally unreviewable) agency action that merely initiates a process to consider such an alteration."

Judge Hughes disagreed, arguing that the plain language of § 324(e) unambiguously bars judicial review of the PTAB's decision to institute review at any time.  Judge Hughes stated that nothing in that section's language suggests that the judicial review bar is limited, as the majority held, to interlocutory appeals of the PTAB's decision to institute.  He also contended that the majority's interpretation "directly conflicts" with the CAFC's recent decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, No. 14-1301 (Fed. Cir. July 8, 2015).

The "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" Claim Construction Standard Applies

On another matter of procedure, Versata challenged the PTAB's decision to apply the "broadest reasonable interpretation" ("BRI") claim construction standard in a CBM review.  This standard is generally used in USPTO office actions, and the PTAB adopted it for all AIA post-grant proceedings.  Siding with the PTAB, the CAFC deferred to its previous decision in Cuozzo, in which the court approved the PTAB's use of the BRI standard in inter partes reviews ("IPRs").  The CAFC acknowledged that although the rules applicable to IPRs will not necessarily always govern in CBM or other post-grant reviews, the CAFC saw no basis to distinguish between the two proceedings for purposes of the applicable claim construction standard.

The PTAB May Consider § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Challenges in CBM Reviews

Versata argued that Section 101 of the Patent Act may not be considered as a basis for unpatentability in CBM reviews.  Under Chapter 32 of the Act, governing post-grant review and § 18 cases, the PTAB "shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged . . . ."  35 U.S.C. § 328(a) (emphasis added).  This language seemingly gives the PTAB broad authority to consider patentability challenges.  However, Versata pointed out that 35 U.S.C. § 321(b), entitled "Scope," states that a petitioner "may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent on any ground that could be raised under paragraph (2) or (3) of section 282(b) (relating to invalidity of the patent or any claim)."  (Emphasis added.)  Versata argued that § 101 challenges do not fall within the scope of paragraph (2) or (3) of Section 282(b), which specifies the defenses that may be raised in a lawsuit involving the validity or infringement of a patent.  The headings in the compiled statutes concerning conditions for patentability only list § 102 (anticipation) and § 103 (obviousness), not § 101 (subject matter eligibility).  Versata accordingly argued that § 321(b) precludes § 101 review.  SAP and USPTO countered that it is generally understood that § 101 is an invalidity defense under § 282, and that Versata's reliance on the headings was improper.

The CAFC rejected Versata's argument.  It noted that both CAFC and Supreme Court opinions over the years have established that § 101 challenges constitute validity and patentability challenges.  Adopting Versata's position would require a hyper-technical adherence to form over substance.  Consequently, the CAFC concluded that the PTAB had acted within the scope of its authority delineated by Congress in permitting a § 101 challenge in a CBM review.


Finally addressing the merits after resolving the numerous procedural and jurisdictional predicate issues summarized above, the CAFC affirmed the PTAB's decisions that:  (1) the '350 patent is a covered business method patent subject to CBM review; (2) the invention claimed in the ʼ350 patent is not a "technological invention" for which CBM review is not available; and (3) the PTAB properly construed the challenged claims of the '350 patent and held those claims invalid under § 101.


The CAFC's Versata decision resolved several important issues related to CBM review.  It authorizes § 101 patentability challenges in such proceedings.  It confirms that the BRI claim construction standard applies—a ruling that is likely to stand for some time given the court's recent denial of a request for en banc review in Cuozzo, in which the BRI standard was found applicable in the IPR context.  And it allows judicial review of PTAB decisions that challenged patents are eligible for CBM review, although only in the context of appeals from final written decisions.  However, the CAFC did not provide any further guidance for determining when a patent is "a covered business method patent" eligible for CBM review, or what defines a "technological invention" that may not be challenged in such a proceeding.  Thus, the opinion is not as helpful as it could have been.

It should be noted that whether Versata's influence is to be long-lived may depend on Congress, which is considering several patent reform bills.  The PATENT Act (S 1137), the Innovation Act (H.R. 9), and the STRONG Patents Act (S 632) all contain provisions that would require that claims in USPTO trial proceedings be construed in the same manner as a court would construe such claims in a civil action, thus scrapping the BRI standard endorsed by Cuozzo and Versata.  The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the PATENT Act by a vote of 16-4 on June 4, 2015.  The House Judiciary Committee approved the Innovation Act by a vote of 24-8 on June 11, 2015.  The STRONG Patents act is currently pending in the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Events from this Firm
16 Oct 2018, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Orrick Partner Rohit Sachdev is proud to Chair the inaugural Storage East summit put on by Infocast on October 16-17th in Washington, D.C.

16 Oct 2018, Other, Washington, DC, United States

Orrick Partner Rohit Sachdev is proud to Chair the inaugural Storage East summit put on by Infocast on October 16-17th in Washington, D.C.

17 Oct 2018, Speaking Engagement, New York, United States

Employment partner, Jill Rosenberg is participating in PLI’s Employment law Institute 2018.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions