Source: http://www.ptab-blog.com/category/cbm/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:49:56+00:00

Document:
The PTAB has rules for sealing evidence, but they are different from those in district court, like much else at the PTAB. Both parties in Google Inc. v. Summit 6 LLC, IPR2015-00806, got tripped up by them.
Just announced today — the amended PTAB Rules of trial practice (click for a copy) will be published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2016 and take effect at the end of the month.
PTAB judges continually impress me with their scrupulous fairness. I noticed it every day of my service as an administrative patent judge and every day since. Here’s a great example of that careful attention.
In many cases brought before the Board, the Petitioner is defending against a real-party-in-interest challenge. In Acxiom v. Phoenix Licensing, LLC, CBM2015-00134 et seq., which involved a covered business method review, the Petitioner was attempting to show that it was a real party in interest, and it failed.
Often overlooked due to its late timing and limited scope, the Motion for Observations provides a mechanism for introducing dispositive evidence when there’s little further the opponent can do about it.
In Google Inc. v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc., CBM2015-00113, the Board instituted a Covered Business Method Review (CBM) of a computer software patent under § 103, but denied the petitioner’s request to review the patent under § 101, counter to the Board’s propensity to invalidate patents under § 101.
How Many Litigated Patents are Actually Subject to PTAB Proceedings?
The Supreme Court’s Alice v CLS Bank decision (2013) restricted categories of patentable subject matter in both the courts and in the Patent Office, including at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. A look at the statistics at the PTAB shows just how effective a § 101 challenge can be.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 103
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101