Tag Archives: CBM

CBM Goes On, Even When the Qualifying Claim is Cancelled

A patent owner does not deprive a petitioner of standing in a covered business method (“CBM”) patent review by disclaiming the claim directed to a financial product or service.

In the final written decision for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00157, Paper 40 (Jan. 12, 2016), the PTAB determined the Petitioner had standing on the basis that at least one claim was directed to a method for performing data processing used in the practice of a financial product or service.… More

Have Your Cake and Indemnify It, Too

In many cases brought before the Board, the Petitioner is defending against a real-party-in-interest challenge. In Acxiom v. Phoenix Licensing, LLC, CBM2015-00134 et seq., which involved a covered business method review, the Petitioner was attempting to show that it was a real party in interest, and it failed.

In Acxiom, the Petitioner claimed that it was a real-party-in-interest or privy to third parties that had been sued for infringement of the subject patents.… More

The PTAB’s Subpoena Power

Parties harness the PTAB’s authority to compel third parties only in rare situations.

The PTAB’s tight trial schedule allows no room for protracted discovery fights.  That usually doesn’t matter, because parties rarely seek more than routine cross-examination of the opponent’s witnesses.  And even when they seek other evidence, such as when investigating a real-party-in-interest issue, the evidence sought usually is in the control of a party to the proceeding.… More

Motion for Observations: A Late Game-Changer

Antique hourglass, black sand, textured background. Right of image, blank space on left, landscape, top half almost empty.

Often overlooked due to its late timing and limited scope, the Motion for Observations provides a mechanism for introducing dispositive evidence when there’s little further the opponent can do about it.

The motion is limited to addressing cross-examination testimony of the opponent’s reply witnesses.  There are normally at most two substantive Replies in a proceeding: the Petitioner’s Reply in support of the Petition,… More

The Cost-Effectiveness of PTAB Proceedings

image001PTAB litigation is less expensive and faster than the old ways.

An old joke about patent litigation among trial counsel that produces cringes when told to clients is that patent litigation is known as the “sport of kings.” That is because of the great expense of investigating, pleading, discovery, motion practice, expert discovery, pretrial preparation, and trial in a traditional patent case. Like that other sport of kings,… More

Ripeness and Mootness at the PTAB

convenant not to sueUnlike other types of post-grant challenges, in order to invoke a covered business method challenge, a petitioner must establish that it has been sued or threatened with a charge of infringement. A petitioner will have standing to file a petition for covered business method review if it has been sued already or if it “has been charged with infringement.” So exactly what does the phrase, “has been charged with infringement” mean?… More

CBM Instituted For Healthcare-related Patent

Medical record data just transfer to show on tablet.In Symphony Health Solutions Corp. v. IMS Health Incorporated, CBM2015-00085, the Board instituted Covered Business Method patent review (CBM) for an IMS patent having claims in the healthcare field. The IMS patent “relates to a system and method for the gathering and analysis of health-care related data” and “techniques for de-identifying the individuals from such pharmaceutical data, in order to maintain privacy.”

In its Preliminary Response,… More