CAFC in IBG LLC: We conclude that the Board’s reasoning with regard to the ’132 and ’304 patents is internally inconsistent and therefore arbitrary and capricious.

The decision of the Board is vacated:


TT appeals, among other issues, the Board’s determinations regarding
whether the patents are directed to a
technological invention. Petitioners appeal the Board’s determinations
that the claims of the ’304 and ’132 patents
are patent eligible and that claims 29, 39, and 49 of the ’132
patent would not have been obvious. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). We vacate the decision of
the Board in each case because the patents at issue are for
technological inventions and thus were not properly subject to CBM review.