June 19, 2014
Authored and Edited by Justin N. Mullen; Jeffrey C. Totten
When is a patent directed at financial services not a “covered business method” under Section 18(d) of the AIA? When it claims a “technological invention.” Experian Mktg. Solutions, Inc. v. RPost Commc’ns Ltd., CBM 2014-0010 (Paper No. 20) (Apr. 22, 2014), the first PTAB decision denying institution of Covered Business Method (CBM) Patent Review, illustrates how the “technological invention” exception limits the scope of CBM review.
Experian involved U.S. Patent Number 8,224,913 (the ‘913 patent), directed to “a method of transmitting a message from a sender to a recipient through a server.” The exemplary claim involves method of authenticating e-mail messages using digital signatures.
In deciding whether to institute CBM review, the Board first considered whether the claims were related to a “financial product or service.” Consistent with earlier institution decisions, the Board construed “financial product or service” broadly, concluding that the claimed messaging system was financially related because it could facilitate “orders” and “offers to purchase.”
Next, the Board considered whether the patent was exempt from CBM review as a “technological invention.” Citing its trial practice guide, the Board first set forth examples of what does not constitute a “technological invention”— “mere recitation of known technologies,” “use of known prior art to accomplish a process,” and “combining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected or predictable result.”
Turning to the claim at issue, the Board criticized the Petitioner for “analyzing the method steps separately, instead of examining each claim as a whole ...” The fact that aspects of the claim, such as e-mail systems, were well-known before filing of the challenged patent did not lessen the Petitioner’s burden to show the entire claimed method was not a technological invention. According to the Board, the Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the claimed method—including an intermediary recording step that eliminated the need for specialized e-mail systems—was not a technological invention.
As this first denial of a CBM petition illustrates, the “technological invention” exemption tempers the broad definition of “financial product or service” in determining whether to institute CBM review. Petitioners should fully explain why no technical problem is being addressed by the claims, including evidence that the technical features were known at the time of invention. Further, in addressing this issue, piecemeal analysis will not do; the claims should be analyzed as a whole.
Copyright © 2014 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. Additional disclaimer information.
Hybrid Conference
2024 California Intellectual Property Law Institute
October 21-22,2024
San Francisco
Hybrid Conference
2024 New York Intellectual Property Law Institute
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Hybrid Conference
2024 Patent Law Institute: Critical Issues & Best Practices
September 30 - October 1, 2024
New York
Seminar
Intellectual Property in the Age of AI: What Do You Own and How Do You Balance Risks?
September 25, 2024
Boston
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.