CAFC in Sightsound v. Apple Reaffirms the Board's Finality of Decision in Initiation of CBM or PGR Proceedings, and Their Reviewability of Whether a Patent Qualifies as CBM

Abstract

In this case , Apple had previously petitioned the PTAB for covered business method (CBM) review of SightSound’s US 5,191,573 and US 5,966,440 patents. Moreover, even though Apple only asserted 102 rejections based on the CompuSonics art, the Board initiated 103 rejections on its own: SightSound argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction. The Board reaffirmed its decision to self-initiate 103 grounds. SightSound appealed to the CAFC. The Court affirmed the Board’s findings except for a minor claim construction issue and its jurisdiction over which patents qualify as CBM.