Covered Business Methods: Apple v. ContentGuard

On July 11, I wrote about the recent Federal Circuit decision in Apple v. ContentGuard. My post erroneously stated that the court found that the patent does not qualify as a “covered business method” patent.  The court did not take that bold of a step of a reversal. Rather, the court vacated the PTAB’s finding that was based upon an improper legal standard and remanded for a reconsideration.

 On remand, the Board must determine whether the ’280 patent qualifies as a CBM patent in the first instance without relying on the “incidental to” or “complementary to” standard.

Thanks to Patently-O reader and USPTO Examiner Scott Anderson for pointing me to this missed detail. – DC



2 thoughts on “Covered Business Methods: Apple v. ContentGuard

  1. 1

    Dennis, you read the “intent” behind the opinion exactly right, even if the holding wasn’t. No one who saw that opinion thinks the CAFC thinks the patent is CBM eligible; if they did the court would have simply affirmed notwithstanding the intervening change in the law of CBM eligibility. The CAFC is simply giving the PTAB a graceful way of coming to that conclusion without issuing yet another PTAB reversal (which are becoming disturbing common these days, although warranted given the shocking lack of quality of many PTAB decisions).

    1. 1.1

      Not that I am disagreeing with you, but do you have stats for this “becoming disturbing common these days” view?

Comments are closed.