Insights: Alerts CBM Review Standard
CBM review has been avoided by disclaiming financial claims. In Plaid Technologies, Inc. v. Yodlee, Inc., (CBM2016-00070, 10-6-2016), the PTAB denied review because none of the challenged claims were “explicitly or inherently” financial. The patent owner had disclaimed, under 35 USC § 253(a), the only claims that were expressly directed to financial products or services. The remaining claims were directed to restructuring device-specific internet data to a different format. The disclaimed dependent claims recited “billing schedules retrieved for a client are converted into two or more records.” The timing of the disclaimer is critical. The Yodlee disclaimer was filed just before the preliminary response. However, a disclaimer after institution of a CBM trial is too late (J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, CBM2014-00157, 1-12-2016).
The Federal Circuit recently ruled in Unwired Planet v. Google (CBM 2014-00006, Fed. Cir. Nov. 21, 2016) that the PTO’s application of CBM review to claims that are “incidental” or “complementary” to a financial activity went beyond the statute. The Unwired patent related to privacy preferences and allowing applications to access a mobile device’s location. Google had noted that the specification discusses using the claimed method to facilitate advertising, which would thereby facilitate financial activity. The Federal Circuit said that “All patents, at some level, relate to potential sale of a good or service.” The PTAB decision was vacated and remanded.
Thus, until there is further clarification, it is risky to petition for a CBM review where the claims themselves do not relate to a financial activity. Even where some of the claims themselves refer to financial activity, CBM review may be avoided by disclaiming those claims.
Paul C. Haughey
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.