- Google LLC v. Videoshare LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 24, 2021 · CBM2020-00027 · APJ Thomas L Giannetti · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review for claims 1–7 because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent; it did not reach the § 101 challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“covered business method patent review, the focus is on the claims. Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (challenged patent eligible for review because the claims recited “an express financial component in the form of a subsidy” that was “central to the operation of the claimed invention”). Thus, “§ 18 (d)(1) directs us to examine the claims when deciding whether a patent is a CBM patent.” Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d at 1340. More specifically, the focus is on the claims to determine whether there is anything “explicitly or inherently financial in the construed claim language.” Id. The claims of the ’341 patent are directed to “[a] method for sharing video over a structured hierarchical network.” Ex. 1001, 25:14–15. We are not persuaded that this a financial activity. We agree with Patent Owner that the focus of the claims is video sharing technology. Prelim. Resp. 21. The claims describe a series of method steps for sharing video content involving servers and video files. Nowhere do the claims discuss or suggest obtaining payment or remuneration. Thus, the claims are unlike those in Blue Calypso, 815 F.3d 1331. In Blue Calypso, the claims expressly recited the term “subsidy,” which the Board construed as “financial assistance given by one to another.” Id. at 1339–40. The Federal Circuit explained that based on this understanding, the Board had concluded that the claims “were financial in nature” and instituted CBM review. Id. at 1340. The Federal Circuit agreed with the Board’s analysis and affirmed its decision to institute CBM patent review: “Significantly, Blue Calypso has not challenged the Board’s interpretation of subsidy as ‘financial assistance given by one to another.’” Id.” slip op. at 6
- Patent Eligibility (§101) › Alice/Mayo step one — 'directed to'Not reached
“E. Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Petitioner contends that the challenged claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not eligible subject matter for a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Pet. 77. According to Petitioner, “[t]he claims recite the abstract idea of including advertising with appropriately formatted video.” Id. at 80. Patent Owner responds that Petitioner has failed to show that the claims recite ineligible subject matter. Prelim. Resp. 64. According to Patent Owner, “[t]he ’341 Patent claims recite specific steps that improve the functioning of a video server providing shared video files.” Id. Because we have determined that the ’341 patent does not qualify for covered business method patent review, we do not address whether the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” slip op. at 11
§ 101 eligibilityDiscretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,362,341 - Banilla Games, Inc. v. Savvy Dog Systems, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 19, 2020 · CBM2020-00014 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because the remaining claims did not establish that the patent claims a financial product or service, as required for CBM review.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“may not be instituted “unless . . . the information presented in the petition . . . , if such information is not rebutted, would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.” 35 U.S.C. § 324(a) (2018). For reasons that follow, we determine that Petitioner has failed to show that the challenged patent qualifies as a covered business method patent. Accordingly, we decline to institute a covered business method patent review of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 2
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“We agree with Patent Owner that the limitations “determining a winning combination” and “testing the game field . . . to ensure that a winning combination more valuable . . .” are not financial in nature. Beginning with “winning combination,” we agree with Patent Owner that “winning,” by itself, is not necessarily monetary in nature. Prelim. Resp. 28. Indeed, other games include the step of determining whether a combination is a “winning combination” or not without necessarily involving any kind of prize or payout. See id. at 29–30. Instead, as is shown in the ’223 patent, some additional step after the determination of who won is necessarily if there is going to be some monetary payout corresponding to the win. See Ex. 1001, Fig. 6 (showing Step 630 of “Redeem Payout and Credit Balance”), Fig. 8 (showing Step 820 of “Redeem Payout and Credit Balance”), 6:34–40 (explaining a player “may” redeem points earned in the game for cash). Petitioner identifies nothing in the specification requiring that money be paid for just winning. Moreover, the ’223 patent makes clear that the games are intended broadly for “entertainment” and “amusement” and not just for gambling. See id. at 1:13–15 (explaining patent is related to “amusement and entertainment electronic gaming”). As Patent Owner explains, the ’223 patent expressly discusses the use of the games in Ohio, which prohibits gambling, but permits the use of games of skill for entertainment purposes. See Prelim. Resp. 52–58 (discussing Ohio’s laws in detail); Ex. 1001, 1:18–33 (describing Ohio’s laws prohibiting gambling, but allowing “games of skill”). Thus, at best, “winning combination” relates only to the possibility that a monetary payout could be received, not that a player necessarily will receive anything of monetary value for playing the game. This possibility is insufficient to meet the financial product or service requirement. See Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1382 (noting “it cannot be the case that a patent covering a method and corresponding apparatuses becomes a CBM patent because its practice could involve a potential sale of a good or service” and “[i]t is not enough that a sale has occurred or may occur, or even that the specification speculates such a potential sale might occur”).” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,736,223 - Keeper Security, Inc. v. Cumberland Systems LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Nov 20, 2017 · CBM2017-00057 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–19 because Petitioner did not show that the patent qualified as a covered business method patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show adequately that the ’647 patent “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,” to qualify as a covered business method patent. As we explained above, Secure Axcess requires a challenged patent to “have a claim that contains . . . a financial activity element.” Secure Axcess, 848 F.3d at 1381 (emphasis added). Petitioner fails to point to any element of claims of the ’647 patent that it contends meets the “financial activity element” required by Secure Axcess. Instead, it merely points to statements in the specification regarding potential applications for the claimed cryptographic algorithm. At best, Petitioner argues that the claimed encryption method can be for financial matters, such as securing e-commerce transactions, but this is not sufficient after the Federal Circuit’s guidance in both Unwired Planet and Secure Axcess. See id. Petitioner has simply failed to identify anything in the claims that are financial in nature.” slip op. at 9
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 8,023,647 - Google Inc. v. Alfonso Cioffi, Megan Elizabeth Rozman, Melanie Ann Rozman, And Morgan Lee RozmanInstitution deniedPTAB · May 2, 2017 · CBM2017-00010 · APJ Brian J Mcnamara · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because the ’528 Patent does not qualify for covered business method review; its claims are not directed to a financial activity.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We perceive no “issue of material fact” that should be resolved in favor of the Petitioner at the institution stage. Pet. Supp. Brief 3. Although the Petition discusses the construction of several claim terms, none of the proposed interpretations includes any reference to features that are related to internet banking or any other feature that is financial in nature. See Pet. 29 (e.g., proposing that “web browser process” be construed as a “process that can access data on websites” in which “this ‘access’ to website data can be direct or indirect”). In short, none of the claims of the ’528 Patent is “directed to” a financial activity on its face, and we do not read any such financial activity into them based on the Specification’s assertion that malware protection could be useful in internet banking. Thus, we are not persuaded that the ’528 Patent qualifies for covered business method patent review.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed patent owner constructionOther
“We agree that the parties’ proposed constructions are consistent with the Specification of the ’528 Patent and, in that context, are the broadest reasonable interpretations of the terms. Therefore, to the extent that claim constructions are relevant to this Decision, we adopt the proposed constructions. Citing the claim construction order entered by the district court in co- pending litigation, Petitioner proposes we construe the term “system file” in claims 21, 44, and 64 to be synonymous with a “critical file” or “critical system file,” which refers to files required for the proper operation of the computer’s systems. Pet. 27–28 (citing Ex. 1012). Patent Owner does not propose a specific construction. We agree that Petitioner’s proposed construction is broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification of the ’528 Patent and we adopt it in this proceeding to the extent that claim constructions are relevant to this Decision.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble limitingOther
“The parties also agree that the preamble of claim 64 is limiting. Pet. 29–30; Prelim. Resp. 15. The preamble of claim 64 recites specific features of the claimed computer program product, e.g., that the stored code is capable of executing instructions using a common operating system having at least one electronic data processor coupled to other elements in a specific way.” slip op. at 7
Claim constructionDiscretionary denial - Facebook, Inc. / Instagram, LLC v. Skky, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Apr 12, 2017 · CBM2017-00002 · APJ William V Saindon · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution because claims 8 and 10–14 did not make the patent eligible for CBM review; claims 1–7 and 9 had been disclaimed.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“patent review “shall be regarded as, and shall employ the standards and procedures of, a post-grant review” with certain exceptions not relevant here. Under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a), a post-grant review cannot be “instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition. . . would demonstrate that it is more likely than not that at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition is unpatentable.”” slip op. at 2
- Adverse judgmentAdverse judgmentOther
“Resp. 5 (citing Ex. 2001); Pet. Prelim. Reply (addressing the disclaimer); PO Sur-Reply (replying to Pet. Prelim. Reply). Patent Owner argues that for the purpose of determining whether or not to institute a CBM proceeding, the Board must treat disclaimed claims “as never having existed.” Prelim. Resp. 5–6 (citing Great West Cas. Co. v. Intellectual Ventures II LLC, Case CBM2015-00171, slip op. at 7 (PTAB Feb. 9, 2016) (Paper 10)).” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,203,870 - Cme Group, Inc. v. Volatility Partners, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Mar 28, 2017 · CBM2016-00024 · APJ Trenton A Ward · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review of claims 1–50 because CME Group failed to establish standing to file the petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied rpiInstitution denied
“In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a), the Petitioner bears the burden of establishing “petitioner has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.” Based on the record before us, and for purposes of this Decision, we determine the information presented in the Petition and supporting evidence does not establish that Petitioner had standing to file the Petition.” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDenied
“Here, we determine that Petitioner fails to sufficiently establish an “adverse legal interest” by failing to identify an underlying cause of action that Patent Owner could have brought or threatened to bring. First, Petitioner has not sufficiently established that the License Agreement covers the ’RE435 patent. The License Agreement licenses “the inventions claimed in the [’184 patent]” (Ex. 1004, 2). None of the claims in the original ’184 patent was confirmed during the prosecution of the reissue application, as only claim 1 from the ’184 patent was maintained in the reissue application, and this claim was amended during the prosecution of the reissue application. See Ex. 1003, 26–40, 176–182, 189–203. Therefore, Petitioner fails to establish sufficiently how any of “the inventions claimed in the ’184 patent” are currently claimed in the ’RE435 patent.” slip op. at 8
Discretionary denial - Ford Motor Company v. Versata Development Group, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Mar 15, 2017 · CBM2016-00101 · APJ Sally C Medley · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution on claims 1–21 because the patent was not shown to qualify as a covered business method patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented and the particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’080 patent claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. Therefore, the ’080 patent does not qualify as a “covered business method patent” under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA, and we do not institute a covered business method patent review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,739,080 - Twilio Inc. v. Telesign CorporationInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 27, 2017 · CBM2016-00099 · APJ Justin T Arbes · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution on all challenged claims because the patent did not qualify as a covered business method patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented and particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’792 patent claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. Therefore, the ’792 patent does not qualify as a “covered business method patent” under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA, and we do not institute a covered business method patent review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims. III. ORDER In consideration of the foregoing, it is hereby: ORDERED that the Petition is denied as to all challenged claims of the ’792 patent.” slip op. at 14
- BurdenDecided for patent owner
“For the foregoing reasons, based on the record presented and particular facts of this proceeding, Petitioner has not established that the ’792 patent claims a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service. Therefore, the ’792 patent does not qualify as a “covered business method patent” under § 18(d)(1) of the AIA, and we do not institute a covered business method patent review on any of the asserted grounds as to any of the challenged claims.” slip op. at 14
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,300,792 - Apple Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · Sep 28, 2016 · CBM2016-00053 · APJ Kevin W Cherry · CBM · Institution
The Board denied Apple’s petition and did not institute CBM review because Apple failed to establish standing, including a real and immediate controversy concerning the ’060 patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied
“3. Analysis We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has failed to show sufficiently that it has standing to bring this covered business method patent review. Specifically, we agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not established sufficiently, at this time, that there is a real and immediate 8 controversy regarding the ’060 patent. An essential link in the logical chain of Petitioner’s allegations that it has standing is that the scope of the claims of the ’060 patent and the asserted claims of ’850 patent in the district court lawsuit are “substantially similar.” See Pet. 7–10. We agree, however, with Patent Owner that Petitioner has not shown adequately that the claims of the two patents are sufficiently similar. Although Petitioner contends that claim 13 of the challenged patent is similar in scope to claim 12 of the already asserted ’850 patent, it fails to provide any meaningful analysis to support its contention. Instead, it merely summarizes and lists certain similar claim limitations in the two claims without providing any discussion of the actual language of the identified limitations, the other limitations in the claims, and the claims as a whole.” slip op. at 8
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Real party in interest / privityDenied
“petitioner’s grounds for standing. 37 C.F.R. § 42.304(a). Rule 42.304(a) states it is Petitioner’s burden to “demonstrate that the patent for which review is sought is a covered business method patent, and that the petitioner meets the eligibility requirements of § 42.302.” Id. One of those eligibility requirements is that only persons (or their privies) who have been sued or charged with infringement under a patent are permitted to file a petition seeking a covered business method patent review of that patent. AIA § 18(a)(1)(B); 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a). Under our rules, “[c]harged with infringement means a real and substantial controversy regarding infringement of a covered business method patent exists such that the petitioner would have standing to bring a declaratory judgment action in Federal court.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.302(a).” slip op. at 5
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 9,009,060 - Corelogic, Inc. v. Boundary Solutions, Inc.Institution deniedPTAB · May 24, 2016 · CBM2016-00017 · APJ Richard H Marschall · CBM · Institution
The Board denied institution of CBM review because CoreLogic did not show that the patent claims a method or apparatus for a financial product or service.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)Institution denied meritsInstitution denied
“We agree with BSI. CoreLogic does not explain adequately how any of the claims of the ’946 patent recite a method or apparatus “for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1). CoreLogic focuses on claim 1, but fails to identify any limitation in claim 1 or any other claim that relates to a financial activity in any way. Claim 1 claims a “method for retrieving and displaying geographic parcel boundary polygon maps,” which has applicability to retrieving and displaying map data, not financial products and services. CoreLogic suggests that the method of claim 1 “can be used” by various entities in a business context, but does not argue, let alone establish, that the claim terms on their face are financial in nature. See Pet. 11. CoreLogic asserts that the specification of the ’946 patent describes several methods of generating revenue using the claimed methods, and that numerous businesses may pay for access to map data generated using the claimed method. Pet. 10–16. CoreLogic’s reliance on these portions of the specification is unavailing. First, CoreLogic fails to address how these disclosures relate directly to, or meaningfully informs our analysis of, the language of the claims. For example, CoreLogic does not direct us to any claims or claim limitations that require users to pay for access to the map database or use of the claimed methods. Second, CoreLogic fails to address portions of the specification that indicate the claimed invention can be used “for free,” i.e., without any generation of revenue or financial aspect at all. See Ex. 1001, 2:59 (“These end users may access for free . . . .”), 13:54–56 (“Another public-private alliance option is to offer the free use of the NPDP server to such data sponsors in addition to or in lieu of their revenue share.”), 14:20–21 (“[C]ommodity service subscriber end users (customers) can have access to the NPDP at no charge.”), 15:51–55 (“It is also contemplated that other independent public and private data sponsors could be provided with links as part of the NPDP display which end users could access on a free or fee basis.”). Given that the specification contemplates use of the claimed inventions for free, it is not apparent that the “purpose of the claimed method is to provide data in exchange for money,” as CoreLogic suggests. Pet. 11. At most, CoreLogic has established that the claimed methods could be used to generate revenue in a number of ways, even though the language of the claims does not require any exchange of money or other financially related step. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the “financial prong” has not been met. Numerous Board decisions have taken a similar approach in situations where the specification refers to potential financial applications for the claimed inventions but the claim language does not expressly indicate a financial context.3 In Qualtrics, LLC v. OpinionLab, Inc., CBM2015-00164 (Feb. 3, 2016) (Paper 8), for example, the claims were “devoid of any terms that reasonably could be argued as having any particular relation to a financial product or service,” but the specification” slip op. at 10
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 7,499,946
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.