May 2015

Spotlight Info

In Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 14-1724 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 1, 2015), the Federal Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal from a decision denying a motion to stay pending covered business method review (“CBMR”) until the Board institutes a CBMR proceeding.  JPMorgan Chase & Co. filed a motion to stay pending CBMR based on its intent to file four CBMR petitions, only two of which were later filed.  The district court denied the motion.  On appeal of the denial, the Federal Circuit considered “whether the proper interpretation of CBMR ‘proceeding’ in § 18(b)(2) [of the AIA] encompasses pending CBMR petitions on which the [Board] has not yet acted.”  Slip op. at 7-8.  Interpreting the language of the AIA, the Court explained that the statutory language “suggest[s] that the petition is a request that a proceeding be instituted, not that the petition itself institutes a proceeding.”
Id. at 8.  The Court also considered the AIA’s legislative history and found that it suggests that a CBMR “proceeding” does “not begin until the [Board] institutes the proceedings” after the petition has been found to present the required showing of invalidity.  Id. at 10.  The Court then held that it does not have jurisdiction under § 18(b)(2) of the AIA to consider an interlocutory appeal from a decision on a motion to stay until after the Board institutes a CBMR proceeding, and dismissed the appeal.  Judge Hughes dissented, asserting that the Court should have “jurisdiction over any stay decision related to a [CBMR] proceeding, regardless of whether the stay request was filed at the petition stage or after institution.”  Hughes Dissent at 7.  See this month’s edition of Last Month at the Federal Circuit for a full summary of this decision.