Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

How to Avoid Having Your Patent Interpreted as a Covered Business Method (CBM) Patent

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on March 8, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

martin-ceralde-40407Suppose that you have an invention disclosure that uses computers and the Internet to carry out transactions that could include financial transactions? When you draft your patent application, is there anything that you can do to avoid having your patent application and resulting issued patent from being interpreted as a covered business method patent?  The answer is YES!

Let’s suppose you have an invention disclosure that is related to authenticating a web page and solves problems related to providing a website to customers of financial institutions.  The disclosure mentions that a customer computer may employ a modem to occasionally connect to the Internet and any merchant computer and bank computer are interconnected via a network.  How do you draft the patent application including the claims such that the patent application and resulting issued patent are not considered a CBM patent?

In the United States, a CBM patent is defined under the American Invents Act (AIA) as

a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service”. (AIA Section 18(d)(1).)

A CBM patent is identified by the claims properly interpreted in light of the written description.  Secure Axcess, LLC v. PNC Bank National Association et al., Appeal No. 2016-1353, (Fed. Cir. 2017).  The claims, when properly construed in light of the written description, only require one of a wide range of finance-related activities to be considered a CBM patent, examples of which can be found in previous cases such as Versata, Blue Calypso, and SightSound.  However, this definition does not mean that if the invention is used by various institutions that include a financial institution it is a CBM patent. Unwired Planet, LLC. v. Google, Inc., 841 F.3d 1376, 1381-1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Based on current law, when the claims are properly construed in light of the specification, a single claim that claims a method or corresponding apparatus used in the practice of a financial product or service could qualify as a CBM patent.  This does not mean that a patent on an invention qualifies under the definition of a CBM patent just because it could be used by various institutions that include a financial institution or are incidental to a financial activity.

However, Section 18(d) recites that the definition of a CBM patent does not include a “technical invention”.  The definition of a technical invention is one in which the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.  The mere recitation of known technologies, reciting the use of known prior art technology, and combining prior art structures to achieve the normal, expected, or predictable results of that combination will not allow an invention to fall with the definition of the technical invention exception to the definition of a CBM patent.

For practice tips, it is recommended that when the claims are drafted, language should be avoided claiming financial activity such as use of the words “bank”, “commercial”, “commerce”, “commerce transaction”, “merchant”, and “customer”.  In the written description, it is recommended that the activity be described as directed to one or more various institutions and not directed to a financial institution.  Further, the written description should describe a technological feature that solves a technical problem solved by a technical solution that includes the technological feature.

Using the practice tips on the above example, the written description should describe computer security by authenticating a web page by using an authentication key that is a technical feature and solves the technical problem of authenticating related to users of various institutions.  The written description should also describe a user computer employing a modem to connect to the Internet and a host computer and a third party computer interconnected via a network.  The claims should claim a method or system that claims authentication of a web page to enable authentication by an authenticity key to verify a source of formatted data.

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo