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

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

UPC cases are (very) gradually becoming more distributed across other local divisions outside Germany, which can only be good news for the pan-European forum
Clarification concerning jurisdictional reach and latest stats released by the court were also among the top talking points in recent weeks
Although unanimous decision by the top court clarifies several aspects of the honest concurrent use defence, practitioners say ambiguities remain
Tristan Sherliker says he hopes to solve an access to justice issue by making the automated court bundle tool free to use
The team, comprising two partners and one senior consultant, plans to offer “highly differentiated” services to clients
HGF’s new ownership model frees it from the hiring constraints of traditional partnerships, its CEO told Managing IP
New timeline for 2026 aims to provide clearer guidance to firms and practitioners on the full jurisdictional market view
Attorneys contemplate whether clients using AI for legal guidance is beneficial to attorney-client relationships or more of a nuisance
Richard de Bodo, who had a lengthy career at international firms, shares how he will address client needs and praises the unique offerings of smaller firms
An Australian top court decision clarifying honest concurrent use and wins by publishers against AI platforms were also among the top talking points
Gift this article