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

USPTO Asked to Consider Not Just Covered Business Methods, But the Covered Business Methods

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.

 

Contacts

Jeffrey A. Berkowitz
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2710
Email

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. 

Related Insights

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

TopGolf for the Troops 2026

June 11, 2026

Ashburn

Articles

California Reaches Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with General Motors Over Driver Data

June 4, 2026

Articles

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

D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: April 2026

June 1, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 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

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

May 20, 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