In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will consider whether the Board erred in finding the patent at issue eligible for CBM review. The Board determined that the patent is eligible for CBM review because the claimed invention “at the very least, is incidental or complementary to a financial activity.” ContentGuard argues that the Board relied on an incorrect standard for CBM review that addressed whether the claims could encompass embodiments that are financial in nature rather than considering whether they affirmatively recite financial activity. Apple argues that the patents meets the statutory definition of a CBM patent because the claims, in view of the claim language and the specification, are financial in nature.