Cash Access Patent Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Despite PTAB’s Prior Denial of CBM Review

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss because the asserted claims of plaintiff’s cash access patent encompassed unpatentable subject matter even though the PTAB denied defendants' petition for CBM review on the same ground. "[Two months ago], the PTAB entered an order denying Defendants’ request for CBM review because, in part, Defendants had failed to show 'that the claims are more likely than not patent-ineligible.' The PTAB concluded that Defendants had 'oversimplified the challenged claims' by characterizing them as being directed to 'providing money to an account holder or using trial-and-error until success is achieved.' In the context of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that Defendants have persuasively identified a distilled version of the claims at issue: 'offering an account-holder an alternative way to obtain cash or something of value — i.e., when the first transaction is denied, offering to perform a second type of transaction to achieve the same results.' Moreover, the Court finds that Claim 1 and the specification’s description of the invention support Defendants’ argument. After reviewing the parties’ briefs, the claims at issue, and the [patent] overall, the Court disagrees with the PTAB’s threshold analysis."

Global Cash Access, Inc. v. NRT Technology Corp. et al, 2-15-cv-00822 (NVD March 25, 2016, Order) (Du, J.)