November 06, 2013
Authored and Edited by Rachel L. Emsley; Jeffrey A. Berkowitz
Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (“FNIS”) filed two Covered Business Method Review (CBM) Petitions in late October (CBM2014-00020/21), asking the USPTO to review the two patents that Congress specifically discussed during floor debates prior to enacting Section 18 of the AIA. Congress identified the two subject patents (U.S. Patent No. 5,910,988 and U.S. Patent No. 6,032,137), known as “the Ballard patents”, during their discussion of the need for post-grant review.
In particular, Senator Kyl criticized the Ballard patents as “consist[ing] of long recitations of technology created by others to implement the supposed ‘invention’ of transmitting and processing checks and other business records electronically.” (S1379) Senator Schumer remarked that the Ballard patents are “exactly the type of patents that section 18 is designed to address, and the fact that [lawsuits asserting them] continue to be filed highlights the urgency of signing this bill into law and setting up an administrative review program at the PTO.” (S5432)
According to FNIS’s Petitions, DataTreasury “has elicited licenses totaling more than $350 million from a vast majority of the top twenty-five banking institutions in America” for the Ballard patents, which “DataTreasury contends. . . are foundational to modern day, image-based check processing.” FNIS contends that the Ballard patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112, and noted that it plans to later file additional petitions based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
Copyright © 2013 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.
Articles
California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data
June 4, 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
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.