AIA § 18 (Related to 35 U.S.C. 321)  Transitional program for covered business method patents.

  • (a) TRANSITIONAL PROGRAM.—
    • (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—Not later than Sept. 16, 2012, the Director shall issue regulations establishing and implementing a transitional post-grant review proceeding for review of the validity of covered business method patents. 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) 35 U.S.C. 321(c) and 35 U.S.C. 325(b), (e)(2), and (f), shall not apply to a transitional proceeding.
      • (B) A person may not file a petition for a transitional proceeding with respect to a covered business method patent unless the person or the person’s real party in interest or privy has been sued for infringement of the patent or has been charged with infringement under that patent.
      • (C) A petitioner in a transitional proceeding who challenges the validity of 1 or more claims in a covered business method patent on a ground raised under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 as in effect on March 15, 2013 (pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103), may support such ground only on the basis of—
        • (i) prior art that is described by pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a); or
        • (ii) prior art that—
          • (I) discloses the invention more than 1 year before the date of the application for patent in the United States; and
          • (II) would be described by pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if the disclosure had been made by another before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent.
      • (D) The petitioner in a transitional proceeding that results in a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. 328(a), with respect to a claim in a covered business method patent, or the petitioner’s real party in interest, may not assert, either in a civil action arising in whole or in part under section 1338 of title 28, United States Code, or in a proceeding before the International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337), that the claim is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised during that transitional proceeding.
      • (E) The Director may institute a transitional proceeding only for a patent that is a covered business method patent.
  • (b) REQUEST FOR STAY.—
    • (1) IN GENERAL.—If a party seeks a stay of a civil action alleging infringement of a patent under section 281  of title 35, United States Code, relating to a transitional proceeding for that patent, the court shall decide whether to enter a stay based on—
      • (A) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial;
      • (B) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set;
      • (C) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, would unduly prejudice the nonmoving party or present a clear tactical advantage for the moving party; and
      • (D) whether a stay, or the denial thereof, will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.
    • (2) REVIEW.—A party may take an immediate interlocutory appeal from a district court’s decision under paragraph (1). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit shall review the district court’s decision to ensure consistent application of established precedent, and such review may be de novo.
  • (c) ATM EXEMPTION FOR VENUE PURPOSES.—In an action for infringement under section 281  of title 35, United States Code, of a covered business method patent, an automated teller machine shall not be deemed to be a regular and established place of business for purposes of section 1400(b) of title 28, United States Code.
  • (d) DEFINITION.—
    • (1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘covered business method patent’’ means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.
    • (2) REGULATIONS.—To assist in implementing the transitional proceeding authorized by this section, the Director shall issue regulations for determining whether a patent is for a technological invention.
  • (e) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as amending or interpreting categories of patent-eligible subject matter set forth under 35 U.S.C. 101.

(Sept. 16, 2011, Public Law 112-29, sec. 18, 125 Stat. 284, corrected Jan. 14, 2013, Public Law 112-274, sec. 1(b), 126 Stat. 2456.)