The USPTO CBM process explained

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Cookies Settings

The USPTO CBM process explained

flowdiagramcbm-45.jpg

The USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board has given its first ruling in the new CBM review procedure. Managing IP explains how the process works

Covered Business Method (CBM) review is a post-grant procedure introduced under the America Invents Act (AIA). It allows alleged infringers to challenge the validity of business method patents “covered” under Section 18 of the AIA through the USPTO’s appeals system, rather than through litigation.

CBM review is only available for patents which relate to “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”. Patents concerning “technological inventions” are not eligible for the procedure.

In order to initiate a CBM review, the petitioner must have been sued for infringement of the patent in question.

CBM review is an interim measure which will be available until September 16, 2020. The USPTO will not accept any new petitions for CBM reviews on or after that date.

The chart below outlines the various stages a patent may go through under CBM review.

Opponents of CBM review claim that lobbyists from the financial services industry pressured Congress to include the provision as part of the AIA.

flowdiagramcbm.jpg

See also: analysis of the first CBM review decision in SAP v Versata (Managing IP subscription or free trial required).

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The IP boutique is betting that growing investment in quantum and semiconductors will fuel demand as technology shifts toward physical systems
Lawyers say the overhaul better reflects commercial reality, with changes spanning novelty searches, digital designs and access to a small claims track, but stopping short of criminalising unregistered design infringement
Carpmaels & Ransford hires its fourth partner of the year and wins access to UPC files, as fresh orders address costs, confidentiality and the use of divisional patents
Peter Ling of Lenz & Staehelin in Zurich discusses trends in patent litigation, the regulation of AI and the benefits of teaching IP
Brandsmiths and Powell Gilbert will contest claims over several UK trademarks in a High Court case examining the ownership and revival of a heritage brand
Hogan Lovells Cadwalader is taking a fresh strategic approach to pricing in its AI strategy. It could amplify calls for law firms to ditch the billable hour
Charles Harding plans to build a new team around life sciences oppositions and contentious work, drawing on his three decades developing a practice from scratch at D Young & Co
The firm reveals how its litigation strategies informed the arguments that took Masimo’s judgment past $818 million
The firm was rebuilding its IP practice through a string of patent hires and a Texas expansion, but its dissolution has put the newly built talent back into the market
AI can exploit longstanding gaps in copyright protection at remarkable speed, but EU law still provides tools to fight back, says Simon Hembt at Bird & Bird
Gift this article