PTAB Section 101 Ruling Breaks With CAFC Opinion on Business Method

Authored by Brian S. Mudge

In a recent decision, a divided PTAB panel has ruled that a patent by Trading Technologies is directed to an ineligible abstract idea. While a post-Alice patent ineligible ruling is not itself unusual, the case, IBG v. Trading Technologies,[1] is noteworthy because it involves a member of the same patent family, and indeed nearly identical claim language, as a Trading Technologies patent that the Federal Circuit previously held was not directed to an abstract idea.

Key Takeaway:  Despite nearly identical claim language, the IBG majority panel reached a conclusion as to patent eligibility opposite to that of the Federal Circuit in a prior case involving the same patent family — thus demonstrating how unpredictable the issue can be and raising more questions about making abstract idea determinations.

Click here to continue reading...

Is it Settled (Part 2)? PTAB Following Federal Circuit’s Narrowed CBM Definition

Authored by Brian S. Mudge and Andrew D. Kasnevich

Covered business method reviews are an important component of AIA patent trials, but the extent of patents eligible for CBM review has not been subject to a consistent standard. In Part 1, we discussed the Federal Circuit’s decisions narrowing the scope of CBM eligibility, eliminating from CBM review patents claiming activities that are only “incidental to” or “complementary to” financial activity, and its most recent order denying en banc rehearing in Secure Axcess — which may have settled the legal question of CBM scope. In Part 2 (herein), we discuss recent PTAB decisions showing how the Board has adjusted its approach in evaluating whether a patent is eligible for CBM review in view of the Federal Circuit’s guidance, along with considerations for parties and practitioners going forward.

Click here to continue reading...

Is it Settled (Part 1)? Divided Federal Circuit Denies En Banc Review of Narrowed Definition of Covered Business Method

Authored by Brian S. Mudge and Andrew D. Kasnevich

We have previously written about the scope of patents eligible for CBM review, including the PTAB’s inconsistent approaches in determining whether patents qualify for CBM review and the Federal circuit’s narrowing of the eligibility standard employed by the PTAB.[1] On June 6, 2017, a divided Federal Circuit issued an order in Secure Axcess denying petitions for rehearing en banc.[2] By declining en banc rehearing, the Federal Circuit may have placed a stamp of finality on the scope of CBM review.

Click here to continue reading...

SCOTUS to Decide 2: Are AIA Patent Reviews Constitutional?

Authored by Brian S. Mudge and Clifford A. Ulrich

For the second time in less than a month, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 12, 2017 granted certiorari in a case involving inter partes review. In Oil States v. Greene’s Energy Group, the Court has agreed to decide whether administrative patent trials, launched in 2012 by the America Invents Act, are Constitutional.[1] The case will decide if the AIA patent review program, which has resulted in over 1,500 final decisions declaring some or all challenged claims unpatentable, remains viable, or whether validity challenges must be heard by the district courts. A ruling that AIA patent trials are unconstitutional would result in substantial change to the current patent litigation landscape and strategy.

Click here to continue reading...

SCOTUS to Decide: Is PTAB Required to Determine Patentability of All Claims Challenged in an IPR Petition?

Authored by Brian S. Mudge and Clifford A. Ulrich

On May 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Lee, agreeing to decide whether the PTAB is required to issue a final written decision with respect to patentability of all claims challenged in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) or whether it may issue a final written decision with respect to only some of the claims challenged in the petition. The case may significantly affect how the PTAB handles IPR proceedings.

Click here to continue reading...