Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.
Decision Date | 09 June 2017 |
Docket Number | 2016-2001 |
Citation | 859 F.3d 1044 |
Parties | CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORP., Appellant v. WESTLAKE SERVICES, Appellee |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Douglas R. Nemec , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by Paramjeet Sammi, Andrew Gish ; James Y. Pak , Palo Alto, CA.
John David Van Loben Sels , Fish & Tsang LLP, Redwood City, CA, argued for appellee. Also represented by Jennifer Shih .
Sarah E. Craven , Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for intervenor Joseph Matal. Also represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Frances Lynch, Scott Weidenfeller .
Before Dyk, Mayer, and Reyna, Circuit Judges.
Credit Acceptance Corp. ("CAC") appeals the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") in a Covered Business Method ("CBM") review proceeding. The Board determined that claims 10–12 and 14–33 of CAC's U.S. Patent No. 6,950,807 B2 ("the '807 patent") are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. CAC appeals the Board's determination that the petitioner, Westlake Services, LLC ("Westlake"), was not estopped from maintaining CBM review of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1). CAC also appeals the Board's § 101 determination. Because we agree with the Board that Westlake was not estopped from maintaining CBM review of those claims and that the challenged claims are unpatentable under § 101, we affirm.
CAC is the assignee of the '807 patent, which includes both system and method claims directed to "provid[ing] financing for allowing a customer to purchase a product selected from an inventory of products maintained by a dealer." '807 patent, abstract. In one embodiment, the products are vehicles for sale at a car dealership. The invention involves, inter alia , "maintaining a database of the dealer's inventory," gathering financing information from the customer, and "presenting a financing package to the dealer for each individual product in the dealer's inventory." Id.
'807 patent, col. 15 ll. 17–38.
Relevant to this appeal are two CBM review proceedings involving the '807 patent and the same petitioner (Westlake). In the first proceeding, Westlake petitioned for CBM review of all claims (1–42) of the '807 patent, asserting that the claims are ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On March 31, 2014, in a decision that pre-dated the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 189 L.Ed.2d 296 (2014), the Board instituted review based on the § 101 grounds but with respect to fewer than all of the challenged claims. The Board instituted review of claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42, but it did not institute review of claims 10–12 and 14–33 (the claims now at issue). The Board was unpersuaded that claims 10–12 and 14–33 were more likely than not ineligible under this court's then-prevailing decision in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC , 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (" Ultramercial II ").
Nearly three months later, the Supreme Court issued Alice and vacated the Ultramercial II decision relied upon by the Board. WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2870, 189 L.Ed.2d 828 (2014). On August 20, 2014, in view of the developments in § 101 jurisprudence, Westlake filed a second petition for CBM review, again challenging claims 10–12 and 14–33 as patent-ineligible under § 101.1 On November 14, 2014, we issued a revised Ultramercial decision, Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC , 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (" Ultramercial III "), holding the claims in that case patent-ineligible under § 101. Noting recent authority on § 101 from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit (including the new Ultramercial III decision), the Board instituted review of claims 10–12 and 14–33, concluding that it was "more likely than not that [the challenged claims] are directed to abstract ideas with no inventive concept." J.A. 938.
In its institution decision, the Board rejected CAC's argument that the existence of the first CBM proceeding estopped Westlake from challenging claims 10–12 and 14–33 under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1). The Board's determination was based on the fact that the first proceeding had not yet resulted in a final written decision, and therefore, CAC's estoppel argument was not ripe.
The first and second instituted CBM proceedings continued in parallel until March 24, 2015, when the Board issued a final written decision in the first proceeding concluding that claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42 of the '807 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.2 On April 9, 2015, CAC moved to terminate the second proceeding, again urging that Westlake was estopped from challenging claims 10–12 and 14–33 under § 325(e)(1) now that the Board had issued a final written decision in the first proceeding. The Board denied CAC's motion, explaining that estoppel under § 325(e)(1) applies on a claim-by-claim basis and that the final written decision in the first proceeding had only ruled upon claims 1–9, 13, and 34–42. Because that final written decision did not rule upon non-instituted claims 10–12 and 14–33, Westlake was free (for purposes of estoppel) to maintain its challenge to those claims in the second proceeding.
On January 25, 2016, the Board issued a final written decision in the second CBM proceeding concluding that claims 10–12 and 14–33 of the '807 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CAC appeals that decision. It asserts that Westlake should have been estopped from maintaining its challenge to claims 10–12 and 14–33 and argues that the Board's § 101 decision was in error. Westlake opposes, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") has intervened to support the Board's decision on all issues. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). "We review the Board's factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. , 814 F.3d 1309, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) (emphasis added).
As a threshold matter, both Westlake and the PTO argue that a determination by the Board on 35 U.S.C. § 325(e)(1) is nonappealable, and therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to review the Board's estoppel determination. We disagree.
The PTO relies on 35 U.S.C. § 324(e), which provides, "[t]he determination by the Director whether to institute a post-grant review under this section shall be final and nonappealable." The PTO asserts that the Board's estoppel decision is akin to a decision to institute review, which is nonappealable. In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee , ––– U.S. ––––, 136 S.Ct. 2131, 195 L.Ed.2d 423 (2016), the Supreme Court considered the parallel "no appeal" statute for inter partes review ("IPR") proceedings, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), and held that Board decisions are nonappealable "where the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to the application and interpretation of statutes related to the Patent Office's decision to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alarm.com Inc. v. Hirshfeld
..." (quoting 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a), (c) (version effective between Sept. 16, 2011, and Sept. 15, 2012))); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs. , 859 F.3d 1044, 1049–51 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that, under the now-expired scheme for covered business method patents, § 324(e) did not bar re......
-
Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp.
...and it therefore is not subject to § 314(d)'s bar on judicial review. Cuozzo , 136 S.Ct. at 2142 ; cf. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs. , 859 F.3d 1044, 1049–51 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that a similar nonappealability provision with respect to post-grant review, 35 U.S.C. § 324(e......
-
AuthWallet, LLC v. Block, Inc.
...a patentable improvement in computer technology.’ " Trading Techs. , 921 F.3d at 1384 (quoting Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs. , 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ). An asserted improvement in computer functionality must have "the specificity required to transform a claim from......
-
Sionyx, LLC v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., Civil Action No. 15-13488-FDS
...Grp. v. Automated Creel Sys., Inc. , 817 F.3d 1293, 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for grounds); see also Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs. , 859 F.3d 1044, 1052-53 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (discussing Synopsys and Shaw in the context of post-grant reviews). But on April 24, 2018, the Supreme......
-
Attorney-Client Privilege for In-House Counsel
...for patenting and therefore invalid under the on-sale bar. Patent-Eligibility under § 101 Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs. , 859 F.3d 1044, 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination, in a Covered Business Method (CBM) review procee......
-
Chapter §3.02 Processes Within §101
...of allowing senders and recipients to communicate using "generic computer technology"); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. June 9, 2017) (Dyk, J.) (affirming PTAB's Covered Business Method (CBM) review decision that challenged claims were unpatentable bec......
-
Chapter §22.02 Inter Partes Review
...at 1374.[212] Wi-Fi One II, 878 F.3d at 1374 (quoting Cuozzo, 136 S. Ct. at 2142; citing cf. Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1049–1051 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that a similar nonappealability provision with respect to post-grant review, 35 U.S.C. §324(e), did not......
-
Decisions in Brief
...for patenting and therefore invalid under the on-sale bar. Patent-Eligibility under § 101 Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs. , 859 F.3d 1044, 123 U.S.P.Q.2d 1100 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination, in a Covered Business Method (CBM) review procee......