Analyzing CBM Petitions with 112 Arguments
After several months of analyzing the highest volume filing companies and law firms and the 112 rejections in their Office actions, this month we take a different path. We were curious about the impact of 112 errors so we examined Covered Business Method (CBM) petitions, whether these petitions had considered 112 arguments, and whether any claims were ultimately canceled due to a 112 error.
Excluding petitions with rehearing decisions, we found 385 petitions from 1/1/2015 to 4/30/2022. 58 of them, or 15%, had considered 112 arguments. 13 of the 58, or 22.4% of these petitions experienced one or more claims being canceled due to a 112 error.
We dug further and investigated both those petitions that were instituted and those that had their institution denied. 297 petitions were instituted. 46 of them considered 112 arguments, and 13 of those petitions, or 28.2%, had at least one claim canceled due to a 112 issue.
Among petitions that had their institution denied, we found 58. Of those, 12 considered 112 arguments. Of course, as there was no institution, there was subsequently no final decision on any of the claims.
In comparing the two, we found that 15.4% of the instituted petitions raised 112 as an issue, whereas 20.7% of the denied petitions included a 112 argument.
While the number of CBM petitions in this time frame is not large, were the 112 issues caused by easily preventable errors?
In future newsletters, we plan to dig further into this data. We will examine the results of companies receiving the most petitions vs the larger group, and look at other types of arguments. How do 101, 102, 103 arguments fare compared to 112 arguments?