SCOTUS denies Google’s petition in CBM dispute
The US Supreme Court has denied Google’s request for the court to clarify the scope of covered business method (CBM) patents, as well as the ability of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review the determination of such a patent.
The Supreme Court denied Google’s writ of certiorari yesterday, April 30, confirming a decision by the Federal Circuit which narrowed the scope of patents that can be challenged under a CBM review.
Licensing platform Unwired Planet owns US patent number 7,203,752, which covers a system allowing users of wireless devices to set privacy preferences relating to location information.
In 2012, Unwired brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Google at the US District Court for the District of Nevada. It accused Google of infringing ten patents, including the ‘752 patent.
Google subsequently petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for a CBM review of a number of the ‘752 patent’s claims.
The America Invents Act defines a CBM patent as one 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”.
Google alleged that the patent was eligible for a CBM review as device location information can be used to sell advertising.
In 2015, the PTAB said the challenged claims were directed to unpatentable subject matter, and the Nevada court dismissed Unwired’s allegations of patent infringement.
On appeal, Unwired alleged that the PTAB had applied an overly broad standard to find that the ‘752 patent was a CBM patent.
In 2016, the appeals court agreed that the PTAB had relied on an incorrect definition in its evaluations by applying language “incidental to” and “complementary to” language from a policy statement rather than the statutory definition.
Google filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in September last year, asking whether the Federal Circuit has the jurisdiction to review the PTAB’s determination that a patent is a CBM patent.
Google also sought clarification on whether a court should extend deference to an agency interpretation, such as the US Patent and Trademark Office’s policy statement, contained in a regulatory preamble.
However, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
Unwired said it is "pleased" that the litigation has been resolved.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories
Apple accused of patent infringement in two lawsuits
Alibaba fails to stop cryptocurrency company TM use
