Federal Circuit Rules Against PTAB's Interpretation of CBM Review Language in America Invents Act
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Monday in Unwired Planet v. Google against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s current implementation of language in the America Invents Act that instituted PTAB’s covered business method patent review…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
process. Critics claimed PTAB broadly interpreted AIA’s statutory language, which limited the board’s use of the CBM review to include only financial services patents. Unwired Planet sought a reversal of a PTAB decision invalidating the company’s patent on restricting access to a wireless device’s location information. Google sought the PTAB review. PTAB’s implementation of the CBM review process using its broad interpretation of AIA’s language “renders superfluous the limits Congress placed on the definition of a CBM patent,” Judge Kara Stoll said in the three-judge Federal Circuit panel’s opinion. Judges Evan Wallach and Todd Hughes joined Stoll. “The patent for a novel lightbulb that is found to work particularly well in bank vaults does not become a CBM patent because of its incidental or complementary use in banks,” the Federal Circuit said. “Likewise, 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.” The Federal Circuit remanded the case to PTAB with modified instructions for interpreting Unwired Planet’s patent. Google and Unwired Planet didn’t comment.