SecureBuy LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corp

Trials@uspto.gov Paper 12
ntered: April 25, 2014	571-272-7822 E
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________
SECUREBUY, LLC
Petitioner
v.
CARDINALCOMMERCE CORPORATION
Patent Owner
____________
Case CBM2014-00035
Patent 7,051,002
____________
Before BRIAN J. McNAMARA, PATRICK M. BOUCHER, and
GEORGE R. HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION
Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review
37 C.F.R. § 42.208

CBM2014-00035
Patent 7,051,002
2
I. INTRODUCTION
On November 15, 2013, SecureBuy, LLC (―Petitioner‖) filed a
petition (Paper 1, ―Petition‖) requesting review of U.S. Patent No. 7,051,002
(―the ’002 patent‖) under the transitional program for covered business
method patents. Petitioner filed a corrected petition (Paper 5, ―Corrected
Petition‖) on November 29, 2013. CardinalCommerce Corporation (―Patent
Owner‖) filed a preliminary response (Paper 11, ―Preliminary Response‖) on
February 21, 2014. For the reasons that follow, we deny review.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS
Congress authorized covered business method patent review
proceedings in Section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.
No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011) (―AIA‖), which provides, in part:
(1) ESTABLISHMENT.— . . . The transitional
proceeding implemented pursuant to this subsection shall be
regarded as, and shall employ the standards and procedures of,
a post-grant review under chapter 32 of title 35, United States
Code, subject to the following:
(A) Section 321(c) of title 35, United States Code,
and subsections (b), (e)(2), and (f) of section 325 of such
title shall not apply to a transitional proceeding.
AIA § 18(a)(1) (emphasis added). Thus, the AIA provides covered business
method patent review proceedings shall employ all the statutory standards
and procedures of a post-grant review (i.e., 35 U.S.C. §§ 321–29) except for
those expressly excluded (i.e., 35 U.S.C. §§ 321(c); 325(b), (e)(2), (f)). 35
U.S.C. § 325(a)(1) therefore applies here, and it states:
(1) POST-GRANT REVIEW BARRED BY CIVIL
ACTION.—A post-grant review may not be instituted under
this chapter if, before the date on which the petition for such a

CBM2014-00035
Patent 7,051,002
3
review is filed, the petitioner or real party in interest filed a civil
action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent.
35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1); see Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Maxim Integrated
Prods., Inc., CBM2013-00059 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2014) (Paper 12) (Denial of
Institution of CBM Patent Review).
III. ANALYSIS
The Petition was filed on November 15, 2013. Two weeks prior to
that filing, on November 1, 2013, Petitioner filed two separate civil actions
seeking a declaratory judgment that the claims of the ’002 patent, including
at least claim 1, are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112. See
Ex. 3001 (Complaint in SecureBuy, LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corp.,
No. 1:13-cv-01792-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 1, 2013)) ¶¶ 41–45, Prayer for
Relief D; Ex. 3002 (Complaint in SecureBuy, LLC v. CardinalCommerce
Corp., No. 1:13-cv-00417-HSO-RHW (S.D. Miss. Nov. 1, 2013)) ¶¶ 44–48,
Prayer for Relief D. Because the Board may not institute a covered business
method patent review of a challenged patent when the petitioner filed a civil
action challenging the validity of a claim of the patent before the date on
which the petition for review is filed, we deny the Corrected Petition in all
respects. See 35 U.S.C. § 325(a)(1).
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is:
ORDERED that the Corrected Petition is DENIED.

CBM2014-00035
Patent 7,051,002
4
FOR PETITIONER:
Brian A. Tollefson
William N. Hughet
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
btollefson@rfem.com
whughet@rfem.com
FOR PATENT OWNER:
Mark J. Abate
Jennifer A. Albert
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
mabate@goodwinprocter.com
jalbert@goodwinprocter.com