Category Archives: Covered Business Method Reviews

Fed. Cir. finds APJ’s overseeing IPRs to be unconstitutionally appointed, but suggests remedy

Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew (USPTO as Intervenor) Docket Nos. 2018-2140 (IPR2017-00275) MOORE, REYNA, CHEN October 31, 2019 Brief Summary: Board IPR FWD vacated and remanded as APJs are “principal officers” that must be appointed by the President (as … Continue reading

Posted in Appeal, Covered Business Method Reviews, Inter Parties Review (IPR), IPR, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Covered Business Method (CBM) eligibility decision remanded under revised claim construction

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co. Docket No. 2018-1635 (CBM2016-00095) O’MALLEY, REYNA, CHEN September 25, 2019 Brief Summary: PTAB determination of CBM eligibility reversed since, e.g., “SIPCO’s claims combine certain communication elements in a particular way to address a specific … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Covered Business Method Reviews, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Docket No. 2016-1502 (CBM2014-00116) PROST, NEWMAN (D), WALLACH August 28, 2017 Brief summary: Board decision that USPS had standing to pursue CBM challenge and finding certain claims patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed. Summary: Return Mail (RM) appealed PTAB decision … Continue reading

Posted in Article III disputes, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability, Post-grant review | Leave a comment

Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank Natl. Assn. et al.

Docket No. 2016-1353 (CMB2014-00100, CBM2015-00009, CBM2015-00027) LOURIE (D), PLAGER, TARANTO February 21, 2017 Update: Petition for rehearing en banc denied (June 6, 2017) Brief Summary: Board characterization of ‘191 patent as a CBM patent reversed and vacated because the statutory … Continue reading

Posted in Covered Business Method Reviews | Leave a comment

Apple, Inc. et al. v. Ameranth, Inc. (CBM2014-00013) / Ameranth, Inc. v. Agilysis, Inc. et al. (CBM2014-00015, -00016)

Docket Nos. 2015-1703, -1704 REYNA, CHEN, STOLL November 29, 2016 Brief Summary: PTAB decision to institute CBM affirmed (no “technological invention” exception); conclusions of no patentability under §101 affirmed; conclusions of patentability under § 101 reversed (claims to “insignificant post-solution … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability | Leave a comment

Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1194 NEWMAN, PLAGER, HUGHES July 9, 2015 Brief Summary: FC determined it “has the authority to review whether the ‘350 patent is within the PTAB’s § 18 authority” if the issue is “part of or a predicate to … Continue reading

Posted in Covered Business Method Reviews, Patentability | Leave a comment

Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JP Morgan Chase et al.

Docket No. 2014-1724 O’MALLEY, BRYSON, HUGHES (D) April 1, 2015 Brief Summary: FC determined it did not have jurisdiction over a motion to stay litigation regarding patents that are the subject of “pending CBMR petitions on which the PTAB has … Continue reading

Posted in America Invents Act, Covered Business Method Reviews | Leave a comment