Benefit Funding Systems LLC v. Advance America Cash Advance Centers Inc.
767 F.3d 1383
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Appellants Benefit Funding Systems LLC and Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC sue Appellees for infringement of US Patent No. 6,625,582.
- The patent covers a system/method to convert future retirement benefits into current resources.
- About ten months into litigation, U.S. Bancorp filed a PTAB CBM review under the AIA.
- Appellees moved to stay; the district court initially denied, then granted the stay after CBM instituted.
- CBM review was instituted on the basis of subject-matter eligibility under §101, with potential to dispose of the entire litigation.
- Appellants appeal under AIA §18(b) seeking review of the stay decision; the court has jurisdiction under §18(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stay is warranted given CBM review will simplify issues. | Appellants argue CBM review may not simplify due to §101 challenge. | Appellees argue CBM will simplify and the district court found factors favor a stay. | Stay affirmed; CBM review is likely to simplify the case. |
| Whether asserting lack of PTAB authority to conduct CBM review is a permissible collateral attack in a stay proceeding. | Appellants contend PTAB lacks authority to review under §101. | Court should not collaterally attack PTAB authority in a stay. | Collateral attack rejected; authority to conduct CBM review not reviewed in stay posture; stay upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 2014 WL 3360806 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (review of stay decisions should be de novo; collateral attack concerns noted)