United States: Defining The Covered Business Method Patent

Last Updated: September 1 2015
Article by David B. Cochran and Matthew W. Johnson

In the America Invents Act ("AIA"), Congress granted the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB," "the Board") heightened jurisdiction to hear challenges to patents related to performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.1 Patents that fall within the definition of a "covered business method" can be subjected to challenges in a Covered Business Method ("CBM") post-grant review proceeding beyond those available for other non-covered patents. 2 The prospect of additional challenge grounds and expanded time period availability makes CBM proceedings an attractive option when available, but the precise scope regarding which patents are eligible for CBM review has remained fuzzy thus far.

The bright-line rule as to which patents qualify for CBM reviews has eluded practitioners to date. But input into that definition has come from a variety of sources. A broad definition was provided by Congress in the AIA with instructions for the U.S. Patent Office to further define in the ensuing regulations. 3 The Patent Office issued regulations further describing the scope of a CBM patent and provided additional commentary with its rulemaking. 4 In operation, the PTAB has further contributed to the definition through its decisions on CBM eligibility. Finally, the Federal Circuit in the Versata appeal noted its willingness to join in the covered business method patent debate by stating that it has jurisdiction to review the PTAB's CBM standing decisions. 5

The following Commentary compiles the definitional inputs supplied by each of these four parties to help establish the meaning of covered business method patent.

Covered Business Method Patents are patents that include a claim:
  • Used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service; and 
  • That is not directed to a technological invention.

—Leahy-Smith America Invents Act § 18(d)(1). 

Congressional and Patent Office Definitions

In section 18(d)(1) of the AIA, Congress defined a CBM patent as one that "claims 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." 6 The Patent Office then promulgated rules for CBM reviews, considering the legislative intent and history behind the AIA's definition, and concluded that the AIA's CBM patent definition was drafted to encompass patents "claiming activities that are financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity or complementary to a financial activity." 7 In addition, the Patent Office added "[the legislative history] supports the notion that 'financial product or service' should be interpreted broadly," and "is not limited to the products or services of the financial services industry." 8 Finally, in response to a comment regarding the scope of subject matter review, the Patent Office stated, "A patent need have only one claim directed to a covered business method to be eligible for review." 9 Regarding the carveout for "technological inventions," the Patent Office added that "technological inventions are those patents whose novelty turns on a technological innovation over the prior art and are concerned with a technical problem which is solved with a technical solution." 10

The Patent Office provided additional discussion and, perhaps most helpful, examples in its commentary which accompanied the rules and the PTAB's Trial Practice Guide. Regarding technological inventions, the Patent Office stated that "mere recitation of known technologies, such as computer hardware, communication or computer networks, software, memory [or] computer readable storage mediums...," would not typically render a patent a technological invention. 11 Furthermore, "Reciting the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a process or method, even if that process or method is novel and non-obvious...[or] combining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected or predictable result of that combination," would not qualify as a technological invention. 12

Examples of eligible CBM patents included "a patent that claims a method for hedging risk in the field of commodities trading" and "a patent that claims a method for verifying validity of a credit card transaction." 13 Contrarily, "a patent that claims a novel and non-obvious hedging machine for hedging risk in the field of commodities trading" or "a patent that claims a novel and non-obvious credit card reader for verifying the validity of a credit card transaction," were examples cited of technological inventions not eligible for CBM review. 14

History of CBM Reviews

The factors included in the Patent Office's CBM definition are referenced in nearly every CBM institution decision to date. But, the PTAB's varying application and focus on differing factors from case to case continue to create uncertainty in outcomes.

The PTAB structures their CBM institution decisions by first deciding whether a patent qualifies as a CBM patent and if so, whether it meets the exception of a technological invention. Often the PTAB will bypass or reverse the order of the analysis if one category effectively disqualifies the patent from CBM review. 15 Many opinions stress the Board's view that only one claim needs to qualify as a CBM claim for the patent to be eligible for review. 16 Similarly, the opinions typically state that when determining eligibility, "financial product or service" should be interpreted broadly and based on the patent's claims. 17

Financial Product or Service. The PTAB's interpretation of "financial product or service" has narrowed through the short history of CBM reviews. Early institution decisions looked for any explicit link to finance or commerce in the specification or claims. For example, in Experian Marketing Solutions, INC v. Rpost Communications Limited, a patent relating to a method of providing proof of email message delivery was determined to be a financial service because the claims referenced e-commerce capabilities. 18 The PTAB held: "The presence of the e-commerce embodiment makes clear that the method claims have utility to financial processes." 19

But a lack of financial-related subject matter in the specification or claims could rescue a patent from CBM review, as shown in Financial Services Group, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, where the PTAB dismissed a CBM review because the claims did not "expressly" refer to the "practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service." 20 The Board added, "a specification that describes no financial product or service application is different from a specification that does," suggesting that a key factor of a CBM-eligible patent is a reference in the specification or claims to a financial activity in which the patent can be used. 21

In more recent CBM proceedings, the PTAB's decisions hinge more narrowly on whether the patent "require[s] an activity involving the movement of money." 22 For instance, in Roxane Laboratories and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a claim directed to "a method for treating a patient and controlling access to [a] prescription drug used for treatment to guard against 'potential abuse, misuse, or diversion of the prescription drug" was found to be non-financial. 23 Here, the PTAB rejected the petitioner's argument that "contacting the patient's insurance company," "shipping via US postal service or a commercial shipping service," and "checking for cash payments" rendered the patent eligible for CBM review. 24 Rather, the PTAB held that those activities, "when considered in the context of the claim as a whole, do not recite or require an activity involving the movement of money or extension of credit in connection with the sale of a prescription drug." 25 The PTAB further stated that "Congress did not say in the statute that a business method patent 'used in commerce' or covering 'core activities' of running a business is eligible for CBM review." 26

Thus, based on the outcomes in Financial Services Group and other similar CBM reviews, practitioners should consider whether the patent at issue involves the actual movement of money when attempting to handicap outcomes. 27

Technological Invention. A patent must also pass the "technological invention" hurdle before it is eligible for CBM review. To do so, the challenger has the burden of showing that the patent is "not directed to a technical invention." 28 A useful example of a case dismissed on the technological exception is Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC. 29 Here the patent at issue was a distribution service method for automatic computer updates on personal user stations. 30 The PTAB rejected the petitioner's contention that the claimed method is the "normal, expected, or predictable result of the combination of a computer and a network" because the petitioner's arguments did not "address the entire subject matter of the claims." 31 The Board continued, "Although a computer and network may be known technologies, petitioner has not established that simply combining the two would normally result in that combination performing the specific steps claimed in the '054 patent." 32 Because the petitioner failed to demonstrate a lack of novelty and non-obviousness33 in the software's ability to select available software updates and communicate with the user station for installation, the patent was deemed to qualify for the technological invention safe harbor, and the petition was dismissed.

Contrarily, in Square, Inc. v. Think Computer Corporation, an electronic payment system patent where participants may act as either purchaser or merchant was found to be a non-technical invention. 34 Here, the PTAB agreed with the Petitioner's argument that claims were not excluded from CBM review "merely because they recite generic computer technology..." 35 Because the patent avoided tying any claim limitation to a particular technical device and could function with "any suitable implementation or device," the Board found it eligible for CBM review. 36 The PTAB added that it is insufficient to merely recite "the use of known prior art technology to accomplish a process or method, even if the process or method is novel or non-obvious." 37

In view of these decisions, petitioners should consider fully briefing the technological invention exception in the petition to avoid the Motorola Mobility LLC result. In drafting such arguments, petitioners can draw on certain 35 U.S.C. § 101-type concepts (e.g., claims only recite conventional computer hardware, claims could be performed by hand by a person) to illustrate that challenged claims are non-technical in nature. Patent owners should emphasize any hardware in their claims that can be argued to be non-trivial, especially any hardware that goes beyond conventional data processors and memories, to emphasize the technical nature of their claimed inventions. Patent drafters can aid in this CBM defense by pre-populating the specification and claims with technology that can be relied upon in arguments against CBM standing.

Versata Decision: First Look at CBM Standing by the Federal Circuit

In July 2015, the Federal Circuit decided its first appeal of a CBM review in Versata v. SAP.38 In this decision, the court affirmed the PTAB's ruling to dismiss the challenged claims, while simultaneously exerting for the first time its power of review over PTAB decisions on CBM standing. 39 The patent at issue was a method and apparatus for pricing products in multi-level product and organizational groups. 40 According to the claims, the method is used to reduce the need for large data tables by arranging customers and products into a hierarchy of groups based on characteristics. 41 Pricing information is then associated with the groups based on their make-up. 42

In affirming the PTAB's decision to institute a CBM trial, the court agreed with the Patent Office that the definition of a CBM patent is "not limited to products and services of only the financial industry, or to patents owned by or directly affecting the activities of financial institutions such as banks and brokerage houses." 43 The court also noted that the Patent Office is entitled to substantial deference with regard to how it defines its mission, and that it was proper for the PTAB to use the "broadest reasonable interpretation" standard in construing the claims for CBM standing purposes. 44

Regarding the technological exception, the court affirmed that the patent was not a technical invention. Borrowing from a §101 test, the court agreed with the PTAB that the claimed steps "could be performed...with pencil and paper," and that "no specific unconventional software, computer equipment, tools or processing capabilities are required." 45 The Federal Circuit recognized that the regulation's definition ("technical problem using a technical solution") does not offer much guidance, 46 but was unwilling to clarify the definition in this opinion, and concluded that "whatever may be the full sweep of the term 'technological invention,' the invention that comprises the '350 patent is essentially not a technological one as that term ordinarily would be understood." 47

Conclusion

CBM reviews give petitioners a number of advantages that they would not have via other flavors of PTAB review, including additional grounds of available challenge and broader time periods for requesting a trial. For patent owners, lack of CBM standing provides an opportunity to fully extract a patent from the Board without addressing the substantive merits (e.g., 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112) of the petitioner's challenges. Although the Versata case does not resolve the ongoing struggles surrounding the definition of what patents are eligible for CBM review, it is clear that while the PTAB can rule on CBM challenges, there will be continued oversight of such decisions from the Federal Circuit. Further decisions by the Board and the Federal Circuit should add clarity to this somewhat murky area of significant importance.

Summer associates Adam Nicolais and Kali Frampton assisted in the preparation of this Commentary.

Footnotes

1.Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ("AIA") § 18.

2.For example, challenges for Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and Post-Grant Review ("PGR") are limited in the types of grounds (e.g., only 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103 for IPRs) that can be raised and the time periods where petitions may be filed.

3.AIA § 18(d)(1).

4.See 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734 (Aug. 14, 2012); 77 Fed. Reg, 48,756 734 (Aug. 14, 2012). 

5. Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., No. 2014-1194, 2015 WL 4113722 (Fed. Cir. July 9, 2015).

6.Leahy-Smith America Invents Act § 18(d)(1); see 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(a).

7. 157 Cong. Rec. S5432 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011) (emphasis added). 

8. Id.

9.See Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents—Definitions of Covered Business Method Patent and Technological Invention; Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 48,734, 48,736 (Aug. 14, 2012).  

10.157 Cong. Rec. S5428 (daily ed. Sept. 8, 2011).

11.Office Patent Trial Practice Guide, 77 Fed. Reg, 48,756, 48,763-64 (Aug. 14, 2012).

12.Id.

13.Id. at 48764.

14.Interestingly, certain of these examples come from Federal Circuit and Supreme Court 35 U.S.C. §101 jurisprudence, which indicates the Patent Office's recognition of interplay between the CBM eligibility standard and § 101. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

15.Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00083 at 5 (PTAB Aug. 6, 2014).

16. See, e.g., PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00032 at 9 (PTAB May 22, 2014); Fedex Corporation v. Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing, L.P., CBM2015-00053 at 9-10 (PTAB June 29, 2015).

17. Id.

18. Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. and Epsilon Data Management, LLC v. Rpost Communications Limited, CBM2014-00010 (PTAB Apr. 22, 2014).

19. Id. at 5-6.

20. PNC Financial Services Group, INC. and PNC Bank, N.A. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00032 at 11-12 (PTAB May 22, 2014).

21. Id. at 8.

22. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., CBM 2014-00161 at 13 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2015).

23. Id.

24.Id.at 13.

25.Id. 

26.Id. at 17.

27. See, e.g., Sega of America, Inc. and Ubisoft, Inc., Kofax, Inc., and Cambium Learning Group, Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc. and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A., CBM2014-00183 (PTAB Mar. 10, 2015) (Where a patent for registering software licenses by use of a credit card number was held to be a non-financial transaction because the claims did not recite or require an activity involving the movement of money.).

28. Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc., Epsilon Data Management, LLC, and Constant Contact, Inc. v. Rpost Communications Limited, CBM2014-00064 at 10 (PTAB Jul. 31, 2014) (emphasis added). 

29.See Motorola Mobility LLC v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, CBM2014-00083 (PTAB Aug. 6, 2014).

30.Id.

31.Id. at 4.

32.Id.

33. As discussed further herein, the Board is likely performing a 35 U.S.C. § 101-type analysis here, looking to whether the claims include any unconventional software, computer equipment, tools or processing capabilities that might qualify them for the technological invention safe harbor.

34.See Square, Inc. v. Think Computer Corporation, CBM2014-00159 (PTAB Dec. 29, 2014).

35.Id. at 8.

36.Id.

37.Id. at 9.

38.Versata, 2015 WL 4113722.

39.Id.

40.Id. at 7-8.

41.Id.

42.Id.

43.Id. at 35.

44.Id. at 35-36. 

45. Id. at 34, 38. 

46. Id. at 37 ("Defining a term in terms of itself does not seem to offer much help. In short, neither the statute's punt to the USPTO nor the agency's lateral of the ball offer anything very useful in understanding the meaning of a 'technological invention.'").

47.Id. at 39.

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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