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

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 3, 2026

Paris

Conference

13th Annual Summit for Women Leaders in Life Sciences Law

July 29-30, 2026

Boston

Webinar

Successful Strategies to Win Alice Motions and Fee Awards in Patent Cases Against Non-Practicing Entities

July 22, 2026

Webinar

Webinar

Early Motions in Trade Secret Litigation – Offensive and Defensive Insights

July 15, 2026

Webinar

Federal Circuit IP Blog

“2” Does Not Provide Written Description Support for “1”: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Invalidation of Patent

July 8, 2026

Articles

When the Classroom Goes Dark: Lessons from the Canvas Breach for Corporate Cyber Preparedness

July 8, 2026

Webinar

Inventive Step in Europe and the US: Comparing the UPC, EPO and National Approaches

July 8, 2026

Webinar

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit PTAB Appeal Statistics for March–May 2026

July 2, 2026

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

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