Rowan Analytics Insights
Patent Prosecution Analytics Benchmarking Report – July 2022

Examination of 112 Rejections in CBM Petitions

Rowan continues with our examination of Covered Business Method (CBM) petitions, this month delving into the holders of the patents that were most frequently targeted with a CBM petition. We noticed three entities – Smartflash LLC, Phoenix Licensing LLC and Trading Technologies International Inc. – that topped the list. We wondered what kind of arguments were used against these three patent holders, and how that compared to the total CBM petitions.

Of 385 total petitions, 78 (20.26%) were filed against the three entities, between January 1, 2015 and April 30, 2022. Only 8 of these (10%), considered a 112 argument. Comparing this to the data we presented in May, of the 385 total CBM petitions, 15% considered a 112 argument. Did these three large patent holders do a better job in preventing 112 issues?

Next we looked into whether any of these 112 arguments resulted in canceled claims. Among the three entities being studied, 2 of the 8 petitions containing a 112 argument resulted in at least one claim being canceled, and neither of those were canceled based on 112 alone.

Among the rest of the petitions (excluding those filed against patents owned by the three entities), 30 out of the 71 (42%) resulted in at least one claim being canceled based on their 112 argument.

With a smaller percentage of claims canceled by these top three petition recipients, is this further evidence that they do a better job of preventing 112 errors? Do they employ technology in the development of their patent applications that assists them?

If you would like to receive data on applications filed by your firm or your company like the below, to help you understand the power of analytical data to help you, please contact us and we will be happy to analyze your applications as a courtesy.

Sources: USPTO, Rowan analysis