By Kevin E. Noonan — In one of the more daring (and somewhat risky) strategies by an appellant challenging an adverse decision in a covered-business method (CBM) review proceeding, New Vision Gaming asserted a purported conflict of interest by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) in making institution decisions. According to the Appellant’s argument, the pay, bonus, and supervisory structure of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board raised at least the appearance that APJs could be improperly motivated in their own self-interest to institute CBMs and other post-grant review proceedings (see “Appellant Raises Due Process Issues in New Vision Gaming and Development…
