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