## Facts

- Blue Calypso owned five related patents covering peer-to-peer mobile advertising, where subscribers distribute ads to a social network in exchange for incentives, and the system tracks referrals and endorsements.
- Groupon petitioned for covered business method (CBM) review of the patents under the AIA transitional program.
- The PTAB instituted CBM review, concluding the patents were CBM patents and not “technological inventions.”
- In final written decisions, the PTAB held multiple claims unpatentable for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (primarily based on the “Paul” reference) and held certain ’516 patent claims unpatentable under § 112 for lack of written description (terms “endorsement tag” and “token”).
- The PTAB rejected Groupon’s remaining challenges that additional claims were obvious under § 103.
- Blue Calypso appealed the CBM determination and the invalidity rulings; Groupon cross-appealed the adverse § 103 determinations.

## Issues

1. Whether the patents qualify as CBM patents and, if so, whether they are excluded from CBM review as “technological inventions.”
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the PTAB’s findings that prior art (including “Paul”) anticipated challenged claims under § 102.
3. Whether the ’516 patent specification provided adequate written description support under § 112 for claim terms “endorsement tag” and “token.”
4. Whether the PTAB erred in rejecting Groupon’s obviousness challenges under § 103.

## Decision

- Affirmed that the patents fall within the CBM program and do not claim a “technological invention,” so CBM review was proper.
- Affirmed the PTAB’s § 102 anticipation determinations for certain claims based on substantial evidence, including disclosures in “Paul.”
- Reversed the PTAB’s § 112 written-description invalidity ruling as to “endorsement tag” and “token” in the ’516 patent.
- Largely affirmed the PTAB’s rejection of Groupon’s § 103 obviousness challenges.
- Noted a partial dissent arguing that at least some claims should fall outside CBM scope.

## Legal Principles

- A patent is eligible for CBM review if it claims data processing or similar operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, unless it claims a “technological invention.”
- The “technological invention” exclusion is not met where claims rely on generic computer/mobile components and are directed to advertising content and incentive programs rather than a specific improvement in technology.
- Anticipation under § 102 is sustained on appeal when substantial evidence supports the PTAB’s finding that a single prior-art reference discloses each claim limitation.
- Written description under § 112 is satisfied when the specification reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter as of the filing date; the PTAB’s contrary conclusion must be reversed if unsupported by substantial evidence.
- Obviousness determinations depend on underlying factual findings; the Federal Circuit generally affirms where the PTAB’s factfinding and reasoning are supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that incentive-based peer-to-peer advertising claims implemented with conventional technology fall within CBM review and upheld the PTAB’s anticipation findings, but reversed the PTAB’s written-description invalidity ruling for “endorsement tag” and “token,” while largely leaving the PTAB’s rejection of additional obviousness challenges intact.


Blue Calypso, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)