直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

CBMs Not Limited to Products or Services of the Financial Services Industry

April 30, 2014

Authored and Edited by Jeffrey C. Totten

A recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision provides further guidance regarding the scope of “covered business method” (CBM) patents under the AIA. AIA § 18(d) defines “covered business method patents” as patents claiming “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, except that the term does not include patens for technological inventions.” As illustrated by the PTAB’s recent determination that a patent for smart-phone advertising was subject to CBM review, this definition extends beyond the world of banks and financial services.

In Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, CBM2014-00006, Paper 11 (April 8, 2014), the PTAB confirmed that CBM reviews are “not limited to products or services of the financial services industry.” Looking to the AIA’s legislative history, the PTAB found the proper inquiry is whether the patent claims activities that are “financial in nature, incidental to a financial activity, or complementary to a financial activity.”

Claim 25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,203,752 recites a method of controlling access to location information for wireless communication devices that is requested by a “client application.” Based on the patent’s disclosure, the Petitioner argued that such client applications could be used in business applications incidental or complementary to financial products or services, such as banks or other financial service companies. In response, the Patent Owner argued that such a broad definition of “covered business methods” would improperly capture patents only remotely related to financial uses.

Rather than considering the types of businesses using the “client application,” the PTAB focused on how that application could be used. The ’752 patent explained that a business could use the claimed client application to learn when a wireless device is in its area so that relevant advertising may be transmitted to the wireless device. Advertising, the PTAB found, is complementary or incidental to the financial activity of a service or product sales, making claim 25 of the ’752 patent a “covered business method.” As this analysis illustrates, patents unrelated to the financial services industry, but still financial in nature, may qualify for CBM review.

Tags

Section 18(d)(1)

Contacts

Jeffrey C. Totten
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4232
Email

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. 

Related Insights

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

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

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Claim Disclaimer Derails Instituted IPR in Freightcar America

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

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