shutterstock_1169047330_mark_van_scyoc
18 November 2020PatentsRory O'Neill

Thryv applies to CBM reviews, Fed Circuit confirms

The decision to review business method patents cannot be appealed, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled yesterday, November 17.

In a precedential ruling, the Federal Circuit held that the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) designation of a Sipco patent for covered business method (CBM) review is shielded from appeal by the US Supreme Court’s 2019 Thryv ruling.

In Thryv, the Supreme Court held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision on whether an inter partes review (IPR) request was time-barred or not could not be appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The USPTO argued that the ruling also applied to its so-called “threshold determinations” on whether a patent qualifies for CBM review, another type of patent challenge. The office received the backing of Emerson Electric, which was looking to have a Sipco patent (US number 8,908,842) invalidated under the CBM review system.

In yesterday’s decision, the Federal Circuit held that under Thryv, the “threshold determination that Sipco’s ’842 patent qualifies for CBM review is a decision that is nonappealable”.

The ruling confirms that issues related to the PTAB’s “institution decisions”, on whether or not to review the validity of a patent, are effectively unappealable. Lawyers told WIPR last year that Thryv left the PTAB with “unchecked authority” on what patents should be reviewed.

“Although Sipco urges that the [PTAB] exceeded its authority in conducting a CBM review for a patent that Sipco contends is not a CBM patent, Thryv held that the ‘No Appeal’ provision barred judicial review of the threshold decision to institute IPR,” the Federal Circuit decision said.

The Federal Circuit said there was no “meritorious distinction” between the issues in Thryv, and the PTAB’s decision to institute a CBM review.

The court also upheld the PTAB’s decision to invalidate the Sipco patent under this system, finding that the patent would have been obvious in light of prior art cited by Emerson. The patent covered a transceiver designed to wirelessly transmit instruction signals to other devices.

Did you enjoy reading this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox

Today’s top stories

IP tops e-sports executives’ fears as industry grows

GoDaddy launches domain management service for corporations

EUIPO appoints João Negrão as Boards of Appeal president

IP offices must learn from COVID-19 challenge, says report

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Patents
21 April 2020   The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Thryv v Click-to-Call effectively leaves the Patent Trial and Appeal Board with “unchecked authority” over decisions to institute patent reviews.