直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Financial Services and Business Systems

About

Financial Services and Business Systems is part of our work in AI, Electronics, and Information Technology, Communications, and Consumer Goods and Services.

Patent eligibility in a changing legal environment

Protecting innovations related to financial services, software, and life sciences has for decades presented unique challenges, including post-grant review provisions enacted in the America Invents Act and evolving case law after U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Bilski v. Kappos, Mayo v. Prometheus, and Alice v. CSL Bank. Finnegan has stayed at the forefront of important developments in these areas. At the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Finnegan filed the first successful petition for post-grant review of a covered business method patent. And at the Supreme Court, Finnegan briefed and argued the Bilski case, prevailing on both questions presented before the Court, including obtaining a ruling that so called “business methods” cannot per se be excluded from patenting.

Understanding the law, science, and technology

Post Bilski, innovations in e-commerce, financial services, and medical methods continue to develop and thrive. Finnegan advises companies on strategies consistent with the Supreme Court’s directives in Bilski, Mayo, and Alice. As the lower courts apply the Court’s rulings, Finnegan is there, representing patent owners in cases before the Federal Circuit involving the patent eligibility of innovations in financial services and software. For example, we successfully represented Research Corporation Technologies before the Federal Circuit, where the court reversed summary judgment of invalidity of claims directed to methods for half-toning digital images, explaining that only “manifestly abstract” inventions are patent-ineligible.

Finnegan has played a role in some of the seminal court cases involving the scope of patent protection. In 1980, we wrote an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty on the patentability of a living organism. We also drafted the application in In re Lowry and prosecuted the case through the USPTO. That case established the patentability of claims to a machine-readable data structure in a computer. In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we represented one of the parties in AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., which addressed the patentability of a method of determining telephone charges. We also filed an amicus brief in the Federal Circuit in In re Beauregard, which concerned claims to a computer program embodied in a tangible media, such as a floppy disk. On the issue of patent-eligible subject matter, we filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus and in the Federal Circuit in ACLU v. Myriad. With our historical insight and sharp focus on the everchanging patent eligibility landscape, we work with clients across a broad range of technologies, including those related to:

  • Blockchain
  • Cryptocurrency
  • Digital health
  • Digital or virtual currency
  • E-Billing
  • Financial software
  • Mobile banking
  • Payment processing
  • Telemedicine

We help with:

  • Litigating high-value products in district and appellate courts and government agencies
  • Protecting against infringement through litigation or other dispute resolution options
  • Developing and executing patent prosecution strategies
  • Writing opinions and providing ongoing counseling for new and evolving products
  • Developing licensing programs
  • Conducting due diligence investigations
  • Developing portfolio management strategies
  • Identifying protected geographical indication and protected designation of origin marks
  • Obtaining registered design protection
  • Providing trademark and advertising protection and counseling

Everyone in this industry

Experience

WirelessWerx IP, LLC v. Audi of America, Inc.

Persuaded the court that asserted claims directed to an alleged form of geofencing technology were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found the patent invalid and dismissed the case against client Audi with prejudice in the first instance.

4:25-cv-11147, E.D. Mich., Judge Behm

Litigation strategy for e-commerce platform 

Advised e-commerce platform on litigation strategy involving claims of copyright infringement and invalidation of asserted copyright registrations.

United States Automobile Association v. Truist Bank
Represented Truist Bank in a patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas against USAA, who asserted five patents directed to mobile deposit technologies. After asserting counterclaims on six patents and filing IPR petitions for each of USAA’s asserted patents, Finnegan’s strategy led to a favorable dismissal.  

2:22-cv-00291, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
IPR2022-01593, IPR2023-00143, -00144, -00183, -00184, -00829, PTAB, Judges Dirba, Droesch, McMillin, White, Zecher

Auth Token LLC v. Fidelity National Information Services, Inc.
Represented Fidelity National Information Services (FIS) in litigation in the Middle District of Florida against Auth Token, related to Auth Token’s patents involving smart banking card technology. The case resulted in a favorable dismissal for FIS.

3-22-cv-00268, M.D. Fla., Judges Howard, Richardson

CFA Institute v. American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries et al.
Secured summary judgment of noninfringement for the American Retirement Association’s (ARA) use of its CPFA credential name and program.

3:19-cv-00012, W.D. Va., Judge Moon

Groove Digital, Inc. v. United Bank

Represented defendant United Bank in a patent infringement action.

1:18-cv-00966, E.D. Va., Judges O'Grady, Buchanan

More

Insights

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Vacates TTAB Decision Finding Likelihood of Confusion and Remands for Further Analysis of Third-Party Uses of Similar Marks in Use on Similar Services

October 27, 2025

Articles

Article_D.-Mass-Patent-Litigation-Update-October-2024

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2025

May 28, 2025

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Upholds Partial Cancellation of MONEY MART Registrations in Brittex v. Dollar Financial

April 29, 2025

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Bitcoin Mining Patent Retains Original Inventorship

January 29, 2025

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Spotlight on Upcoming Oral Arguments – November 2024

October 31, 2024

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Products Utilizing Licensed Patents Are Not Necessarily Licensed

October 29, 2024

More

News

Award/Ranking

Forbes Names Finnegan Partner Erika Harmon Arner on its Inaugural 2026 America’s Top Women Lawyers List

June 5, 2026

Commentary

New Appellate Opinion in Amazon Biometric Data Case May Signal ‘Narrowing’ Scope of BIPA Litigation, Experts Say

May 20, 2026

Press Release

Leading Finnegan IP Litigator Appointed as Managing Partner

June 25, 2025

Press Release

Finnegan Adds Jenevieve Maerker to Its Trademark, Copyright, and Advertising Practice

April 19, 2023

Media Mention

A Big Bunch of Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout Outs

November 13, 2020

Media Mention

Doc Storage Patents Abstract Under New Guidance: PTAB

April 23, 2019

More

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP