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

Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Injunctions for HandsFree Labs and Align Technology come as the Court of Appeal warns that busy teams must have the staffing and resources to meet UPC deadlines
Gift this article