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

Sim & San, which secured the $16m victory for their client, previously led Communications Components Antenna to a $26m damages win in 2024
IP litigator Ruth Hoy has led the London office since 2022
Emotional Perception AI is seeking more than £200,000 after the UK Supreme Court backed its appeal
Lawyers at Pinsent Masons discuss why the advent of ‘AI-free’ might be a crucial moment for brands seeking to protect their identity
Newly independent King & Wood has established offices in North America, while Mallesons has entered a ‘new era’ with a 1,200-lawyer firm across Australia and Singapore
Ryan Dykal and John Wittenzellner of Boies Schiller Flexner tell Managing IP what’s driving the firm’s patent litigation expansion
News of Dolby suing Snap over AV1 and HEVC patents and SCOTUS offering guidance on the liability of internet service providers were also among the top talking points
Arrival of Caitlin Heard will bolster the soon-to-be-created Ashurst Perkins Coie’s IP presence in the capital
AI, cybersecurity and data practice group will provide clients with legal guidance around AI alongside a 'deep technical foundation’ in IP
Lawyers at Vondst and Biopatents say a ruling concerning the protected status of trade secrets could see the UPC flooded with requests to prevent access to confidential information
Gift this article