Federal Circuit Remands CBM Review Decision, Asks PTAB to Explain Meaning of Part One of “Technological Invention” Exception

Oct 14, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

The ’842 Patent—owned by SIPCO, LLC (SIPCO)—claims a two-step wireless communication system wherein a “low-power” user device wirelessly transmits signal data (e.g., containing a user PIN) to an intermediate node (e.g., an ATM machine), which in turn transmits the data to a central location (e.g., a bank that verifies user PINs). Notably, the specification explains that the “low-power” nature of the user device requires the device to be in close range to the intermediate node, which can alleviate problems such as unwanted interference with the signal data. Emerson Electric Co. (Emerson) requested CBM review of the ’842 Patent on §§ 101 and 103 grounds.

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), a patent is eligible for CBM review if any of its claims cover “performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service.” AIA § 18(d)(1). Exempted from CBM review, however, are “patents for technological inventions.” Id. The AIA does not give a meaning of “technological invention,” but the USPTO regulations provide that a “technological invention” must (1) “recite[] a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art,” and (2) “solve[] a technical problem using a technical solution.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.301(b). Both parts of the exception must be satisfied to exempt a patent from CBM review.

Applying this framework, the PTAB determined the patent was eligible for CBM review and that the “technological invention” exception did not apply. Analyzing only part two of the exception, the PTAB reasoned that the claims cannot solve a “technical problem” because the problem of “[a]utomating machine service requests” (such as for ATM machines) was financial, not technical. The PTAB further explained that the claimed “solution” was also not “technical” because the claims merely recite “generic and known hardware elements and routine computer functions.” Accordingly, the PTAB instituted CBM review and ultimately determined that the challenged claims were unpatentable under §§ 101 and 103. SIPCO appealed.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit, reversed the PTAB and held that part two of the “technological invention” exception does apply and remanded the decision to the PTAB to assess part one. The Court explained that the PTAB “misread and mischaracterized the features” of the claims and thus “did not appreciate that the claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem.” In particular, the Court held that the PTAB erred by failing to construe the term “low-power” as requiring the claimed devices to wirelessly transmit data at a “limited transmission range,” noting that the “specification explicitly ties the low power transceiver to a limited transmission distance.” Under this construction, the Court explained that the claims provide a specific technical solution (requiring low voltage devices to limit wireless transmission range) that solves technical problems (e.g., unwanted interference due to long-range wireless transmission)—in contrast to claims that merely recite “off-the-shelf” components to address a generic problem.

On remand, the PTAB will be tasked with analyzing—and interpreting—part one of the “technological invention” exception, which requires “a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art.” The Federal Circuit rejected Emerson’s argument that, by analyzing and finding SIPCO’s patent obvious under § 103, there was no need to assess “unobviousness” under part one of the test. In doing so, the Court questioned “whether it makes sense to interpret the first part of § 42.301(b)—which references the word obvious—as coextensive with § 103. In light of this, the Federal Circuit explicitly asked the PTAB to “explain what part one of the regulation means and then apply it as so explicated.” The Court further noted that “[t]he omission of any definition for the phrase ‘technological invention’ underscores the importance of meaningful guidance from the patent office on § 42.301(b).”

In dissent, Judge Reyna disagreed with the majority’s claim construction but agreed that the decision should be remanded to interpret part one of § 42.301(b)(1).

Practice tip: Practitioners should monitor the ensuing PTAB decision on remand for its interpretation of step one of the “technological invention” exclusion. More generally, in CBM proceedings, practitioners should carefully review claim limitations in light of the specification for any “technical” hooks to the specification that could help avoid CBM review. The case is also a reminder that, although the PTAB’s decision to institute a CBM proceeding is technically “nonappealable,” the Federal Circuit can review the determination of whether the challenged patent is eligible for CBM review.

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Electric Co., No. 2018-1635 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 25, 2019)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 1, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied in part a motion to compel production of documents and testimony between a patentee and potential investors, valuation firms and an international bank based on the common interest exception. In so doing, the court reaffirmed that disclosure of privileged information to third parties will generally waive privilege unless it can be shown that the parties’ interests are identical and the communications are legal, not solely commercial.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision holding that the prior art exception of AIA Section 102(b)(2)(B) does not apply to a prior sale by an inventor when the sale is conducted in private. According to the Federal Circuit, a sale must disclose the relevant aspects of the invention to the public to qualify for the prior art exception of Section 102(b)(2)(B).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.