Big Banks and Business Method Patents

The banking industry and the patent system are longstanding American institutions whose histories date back to the founding of this country. Historically, however, the paths of these two institutions rarely crossed. Although financial firms have been increasing their innovative output for decades now, until recently they relied on trade secrecy, first mover advantages, and other business mechanisms to protect and monetize their intellectual property — not patents. Through a convergence of circumstances over the past several years, that pattern has changed. The shift began when the Federal Circuit decided that business methods — banks’ primary mode of innovation — are patentable subject matter. That decision triggered an increase in the number of business method patents issued by the PTO, and, correspondingly, a surge in patent infringement litigation targeting big banks. When the banks found little success in court, their powerful lobby persuaded Congress to include a special carve out for financial patents in the America Invents Act — the comprehensive patent reform legislation enacted in 2011. Meanwhile, as the financial industry sought legislative favor to ward off future infringement suits, many of the big banks built substantial patent portfolios of their own. This Article explores this nascent relationship and considers some potential implications of growing bank involvement in our patent system. It suggests that the intersection of these institutions could yield some benefit, for example by improving the publicly available information regarding financial innovations. Yet, more pointedly, it warns of possible harms, especially if big banks use their political and economic power to disproportionately influence patent reform and innovation policy in the future

Fintech: New Battle Lines in the Patent Wars?

Historically, financial institutions have relied on trade secrets and first-mover advantages, rather than patents, to protect their inventions. For the few financial patents that were issued, conventional wisdom was that they weren’t terribly interesting or important. In our 2014 study on financial patents, we showed that banks were breaking from past patterns and increasingly seeking patent protection. We explained that financial institutions were primarily building their patent portfolios as a defensive measure—i.e., to protect themselves from infringement suits. Indeed, the finance industry successfully lobbied Congress to include provisions in the America Invents Act of 2011 that made it easier to invalidate financial patents through administrative review. Yet, two significant developments call for a revisit of our 2014 study: first, the rise of fintech and, second, the recent $300 million verdict in the first bank-on-bank patent infringement suits—United Services Automobile Association (USAA) v. Wells Fargo. This paper explores how the rise of fintech has changed the purpose of patenting among banks, and what a possible fintech patent war would mean for the future of both the financial and patent systems in this country

Look Before You Lend: A Lender’s Guide to Financing Government Contracts Pursuant to the Assignment of Claims Act

This Article briefly summarizes the origin of the Assignment of Claims Act, discusses the lender\u27s ability to obtain a valid assignment of moneys due or to become due under a government contract (but not the numerous other assignment issues that a government contracts practitioner might confront), analyzes the priorities of competing claims against the government for payment of government receivables, and describes the procedure for asserting a claim against the government for payment

Fintech: New Battle Lines in the Patent Wars?

Historically, financial institutions have relied on trade secrets and first-mover advantages, rather than patents, to protect their inventions. For the few financial patents that were issued, conventional wisdom was that they weren’t terribly interesting or important. In our 2014 study on financial patents, we showed that banks were breaking from past patterns and increasingly seeking patent protection. We explained that financial institutions were primarily building their patent portfolios as a defensive measure—i.e., to protect themselves from infringement suits. Indeed, the finance industry successfully lobbied Congress to include provisions in the America Invents Act of 2011 that made it easier to invalidate financial patents through administrative review. Yet, two significant developments call for a revisit of our 2014 study: first, the rise of fintech and, second, the recent $300 million verdict in the first bank-on-bank patent infringement suits—United Services Automobile Association (USAA) v. Wells Fargo. This paper explores how the rise of fintech has changed the purpose of patenting among banks, and what a possible fintech patent war would mean for the future of both the financial and patent systems in this country

Big Banks and Business Method Patents

The banking industry and the patent system are longstanding American institutions whose histories date back to the founding of this country. Historically, however, the paths of these two institutions rarely crossed. Although financial firms have been increasing their innovative output for decades now, until recently they relied on trade secrecy, first mover advantages, and other business mechanisms to protect and monetize their intellectual property — not patents. Through a convergence of circumstances over the past several years, that pattern has changed. The shift began when the Federal Circuit decided that business methods — banks’ primary mode of innovation — are patentable subject matter. That decision triggered an increase in the number of business method patents issued by the PTO, and, correspondingly, a surge in patent infringement litigation targeting big banks. When the banks found little success in court, their powerful lobby persuaded Congress to include a special carve out for financial patents in the America Invents Act — the comprehensive patent reform legislation enacted in 2011. Meanwhile, as the financial industry sought legislative favor to ward off future infringement suits, many of the big banks built substantial patent portfolios of their own. This Article explores this nascent relationship and considers some potential implications of growing bank involvement in our patent system. It suggests that the intersection of these institutions could yield some benefit, for example by improving the publicly available information regarding financial innovations. Yet, more pointedly, it warns of possible harms, especially if big banks use their political and economic power to disproportionately influence patent reform and innovation policy in the future

Global bank regulation : principles and policies / Heidi Mandanis Schooner, Michael W. Taylor.

economic&political bookfair2016Includes bibliographical references and index.xxv, 326 p. :Global Bank Regulation: Principles and Policies covers the global regulation of financial institutions. It integrates theories, history, and policy... debates, thereby providing a strategic approach to understanding global policy principles and banking. The book features definitions of the policy principles of capital regularization, the main justifications for prudent regulation of banks, the characteristics of tools used regulate firms that operate across all time zones, and a discussion regarding the 2007-2009 financial crises and the generation of international standards of financial institution regulation. The first four chapters of the book offer justification for the strict regulation of banks and discuss the importance of financial safety. The next chapters describe in greater detail the main policy networks and standard setting bodies responsible for policy development. They also provide information about bank licensing requirements, leading jurisdictions, and bank ownership and affiliations. The last three chapters of the book present a thorough examination of bank capital regulation, which is one of the most important areas in international banking. The text aims to provide information to all economics students, as well as non-experts and experts interested in the history, policy development, and theory of international banking regulation.Defines the over-arching policy principles of capital regulationExplores main justifications for the prudent regulation of banksDiscusses the 2007-2009 financial crisis and the next generation of international standards of financial institution regulation Examines tools for ensuring the adequate supervision of a firm that operates across all time zone

Panel B: Other Legal Considerations in Fintech

The second panel centered around other concerns in Fintech with a focus on the role of Intellectual Property in the Fintech landscape. The discussion highlighted the trend in banking towards institutions protecting their financial inventions through the patenting process rather than relying on trade secrets. The panel concluded with final thoughts on data privacy and information security’s role in the Fintech

Panel B: Other Legal Considerations in Fintech

The second panel centered around other concerns in Fintech with a focus on the role of Intellectual Property in the Fintech landscape. The discussion highlighted the trend in banking towards institutions protecting their financial inventions through the patenting process rather than relying on trade secrets. The panel concluded with final thoughts on data privacy and information security’s role in the Fintech

Panel B: Other Legal Considerations in Fintech

The second panel centered around other concerns in Fintech with a focus on the role of Intellectual Property in the Fintech landscape. The discussion highlighted the trend in banking towards institutions protecting their financial inventions through the patenting process rather than relying on trade secrets. The panel concluded with final thoughts on data privacy and information security’s role in the Fintech