Trade groups urge US Congress to expand CBM review

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Trade groups urge US Congress to expand CBM review

A group of trade associations wrote to US Congress yesterday urging politicians to expand a review of business method patents to help them fight patent trolls

The 26 organisations, which included retail groups, marketing associations and public interest advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said the system is being exploited by patent trolls who impose “huge costs” that “drain funds from job creation." They claimed that in 2011 alone, patent assertion entities (PAEs) cost American businesses at least $29 billion.

The authors claim that defending a patent lawsuit typically a small or medium business $1.75 million and the average cost of patent litigation is $6 million. They claim that 7,000 businesses were sued by PAEs in 2011-2012 and that the number of companies sued by patent assertion entities has increased by 28% a year of average since 2004.

“Because proving a PAE’s patent invalid through litigation can take years and cost millions, a targeted company faces a no-win situation: it can pay lawyers, the PAE, or both,” they said.

The groups want Congress to expand Covered Business Method (CBM) review, which is limited at present to financial services patents, to other industries. Under CBM review, a procedure for challenging business method patents, a party being sued for patent infringement can ask the USPTO to invalidate a patent. The USPTO can consider whether a patent is abstract, vague, or too broad during CBM, but these grounds for invalidation are not available under other procedures conducted through the USPTO.

Attempting to get a patent invalidated under CBM costs around $100,000, including around $30,000 in USPTO fees, compared to multimillion-dollar litigation. Several businesses targeted by one patent owner would also be able to split the fees and costs for the procedure.

Expanding CBM review to cover all types of patents has previously been proposed by several pieces of legislation, including the Innovation Act, introduced earlier this month, and the Stopping the Offensive Use of Patents (STOP) Act, introduced in July.




more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Alston & Bird acted for InterDigital, while Samsung was represented by Fish & Richardson, during the arbitration process
Powell Gilbert lawyers reveal how they navigated parallel EPO proceedings and collaborated with European peers to come out on top in the Nordic-Baltic Division’s first judgment
The firms posted increases in revenue and profit per equity partner, with both giving a nod to their IP expertise
EasyGroup, the owner of the easyJet airline, said in a press release that UK-based first-instance judges are “less experienced”, bringing a long-running debate back to the fore
A cross-practice team from Mayer Brown, which included members of the firm’s IP practice, advised on the deal
María Cecilia Romoleroux discusses the challenges she has faced in her career in IP and how she hopes to improve things for the next generation of women
Value-added services give in-house counsel the satisfaction that they are getting more value for money, while law firms get the opportunity to win more work
A team at Boies Schiller Flexner is advising shoe company Kizik and parent company HandsFree Labs in the dispute
Nokia’s latest enforcement actions against Geely and Transsion joining Via LA’s AAC pool were also among the top talking points
Benjamin Kelly, the firm’s fifth IP partner hire in a little over one year, has experience in patent and trade secret disputes involving complex technologies
Gift this article