Federal Circuit Applies "Searching Review" of Stay Pending CBM Proceeding

29 September 2014 PharmaPatents Blog

In Benefit Funding Systems, LLC v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers, Inc., the Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to stay patent infringement litigation while the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) conducts a Covered Business Method (CBM) review of the patent at issue. Although the Federal Circuit ultimately affirmed, it noted that the America Invents Act (AA) authorizes it to conduct a “searching review” of decisions to grant or deny stays pending CBM review. 

The Patent at Issue

 

The patent at issue was Benefit’s U.S. Patent 6,625,582, directed to a “system and method for enabling beneficiaries of retirement benefits to convert future benefits into current resources to meet current financial and other needs and objectives.”

Benefit sued Advance America, Regions Financial Corporation, CNU Online Holdings, and U.S. Bancorp for patent infringement, after which U.S. Bancorp challenged the patent in a CBM proceeding. According to the Federal Circuit decision, the PTAB instituted CBM review “on the sole basis of subject matter eligibility under 35 USC § 101.” Advance America and the other defendants moved the district court to stay its proceedings, and the district court granted their motions. Benefit brought an interlocutory appeal challenging the stay.

The Federal Circuit Decision

The Federal Circuit decision was authored by Chief Judge Prost and joined by Judges Lourie and Hughes.

As Judge Prost notes, § 18(b) of the AIA sets forth the “factors that a district court should consider when deciding whether to grant a stay,” and the standards by which the Federal Circuit should review decisions to grant or deny stays pending CBM review.

With regard to the former, § 18(b)(1) lists the following four factors:

(A) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial;
(B) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;
(C) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving party; and
(D) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.

With regard to the latter,  § 18(b)(2) provides that the Federal Circuit “shall review the district court’s decision to ensure consistent application of established precedent, and such review may be de novo.”

As summarized in the Federal Circuit decision, Appellants’ argument on appeal was that “the PTAB is not authorized to conduct CBM review based on § 101 grounds,” so “the district court would not be bound by the results of the CBM review,” so “the PTAB’s review of the ’582 patent cannot simplify this case.”

Without addressing the merits of their arguments, the Federal Circuit noted that they amounted to a collateral attack on the PTAB’s decision to institute the proceeding, which the court already has held is not a proper basis for denying a stay pending CBM review. (In the case cited in this decision, the Federal Circuit reversed a district court decision denying a stay.) According to the Federal Circuit:

A district court, in the context of a stay determination, need not and should not analyze whether the PTAB might, at some later date, be determined to have acted outside its authority in instituting and conducting the CBM review. Such an analysis would, among other things, be antithetical to the efficiency goals of such a stay.

Although the Federal Circuit stated that the patent owner “might potentially challenge [the PTAB's] authority [to grant CBM review under § 101] in the context of a direct appeal of the PTAB’s final decision,” that dicta comes across as inconsistent with the court’s comments on factor (A) of § 18(b)(1):

It is undisputed that CBM review was instituted and that such review addresses whether the claims are directed to patentable subject matter. If the claims are ultimately determined to be directed to unpatentable subject matter, “[t]his CBM review [will] dispose of the entire litigation: the ultimate simplification of issues.”

Having rejected the Appellants’ grounds for appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision to grant a stay.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

Bad Holiday Season News! Estimates of an increase of Cyberattacks 20%!
13 December 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Driving the Future of Automotive Technology
12 December 2019
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Massachusetts Governor Proposes Facility Fee Ban
12 December 2019
Health Care Law Today
American Rule Prevails; PTO May Not Collect In-House Attorneys' Fees as "Expenses"
12 December 2019
IP Litigation Current
ACCC 46th Annual Meeting & Cancer Center Business Summit
04-05 March 2020
Washington, D.C.
Foley/Deloitte Compliance and Privacy Officer Roundtable
27 February 2020
Boston, MA
Let’s Talk Compliance
24 January 2020
Orlando, FL
New England Alliance Annual Meeting
15-17 January 2020
Woodstock, VT