Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents (Historical)

What it was

AIA § 18 created a transitional post-grant review aimed at patents that claim “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,” excluding “technological inventions.”

How it worked

• Standing: only a person (or real party in interest) who had been sued for infringement or charged with infringement of the patent could petition.
• Grounds: like post-grant review, CBM review allowed grounds under § 282(b)(2) and (3), including § 101, but prior art under § 102(a) was limited for pre-AIA patents.
• Timing: unlike PGR, the nine-month window did not apply, so CBM was usable against older patents.
• Standard: more likely than not that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable.

The sunset

The program was authorized for eight years from the date the regulations took effect. It ended on September 16, 2020: new CBM petitions could no longer be filed, and proceedings already filed continued to completion.

Where challengers go now

Challengers use inter partes review for prior-art grounds, post-grant review within nine months for broad grounds on eligible patents, or district court for § 101 and § 112 arguments. Decisions from the CBM era remain useful for how the Board treated eligibility and standing; see the PTAB decisions hub.