07.27.17
Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 6:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The USPTO is reaching convenient but erroneous conclusions by drawing input from just a tiny minority that’s niche interest groups (profiting from a torrent of litigation and low-quality patents)
THE occasional public events that discuss patents tend to be a sham. We wrote about several such bogus panels last year. These are echo chambers. Not a single engineer or technical person attended such events (or spoke in them). Lawyers, attorneys and managers were everywhere; public officials too. But nobody who actually applies for a patents or whose work is affected by patents. The intention of such events is to mislead the public by exclusion of voices.
“The intention of such events is to mislead the public by exclusion of voices.”Such was the report on Section 101, which was the outcome of lobbying, as we noted yesterday and earlier this week. The USPTO continues to grant patents that courts very often reject because the examiners, pressured from above, are too eager to grant and increase the numbers irrespective of merit (prior art, complexity of said invention and so on). It’s similar to what is happening at the EPO, but the US has PTAB (appeal board/s), whereas these systematically get marginalised in Europe and Oppositions/Appeals too (another division) sees windows narrowed to further impede/suppress much-needed gchallenges.
“Well, “these participants” are the patent microcosm, which does no innovation at all.”To make a long story short (or a 60-page document more concise), front groups of the microcosm want not only to eliminate PTAB but also to broaden patent scope, as usual. IAM has just named those notably involved as “the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA) and the IP section of the American Bar Association (ABA),” adding that they “have all put forward proposed 101 revisions” (to water down Alice effects).
This is very much expected and this is why we need to watch this carefully. The writer too is a patent maximalist (longtime proponent of trolls and software patents) and he said:
The report is not an advocacy document [yeah right!] and is therefore not designed to influence the patent reform debate in one direction or another. But it does conclude that a majority of those who took part in the consultation process favour legislative change to 101. “A call for legislation was particularly strong from the life sciences industry but also had many supporters from computer-related industries,” the PTO wrote. “According to these participants, the [Supreme] Court’s precedent is having such a harmful impact on innovation and business development that a legislative solution is critical.”
Well, “these participants” are the patent microcosm, which does no innovation at all.
IPO has in fact worked hand in glove with IBM on this, in order to facilitate IBM's ruinous patent bullying.
“Sites like IAM must be very pleased, for they are directly funded by the patent microcosm and effectively act as a front/influence group.”We have to confess that we have not yet read the entire report (it’s too long), but the impression we get from those who have is that it amplifies the positions of the patent microcosm. Sites like IAM must be very pleased, for they are directly funded by the patent microcosm and effectively act as a front/influence group. That’s just their business model.
Earlier today another writer from IAM wrote in order to protest Japan’s likely/imminent decision to do the right thing, having already toughened the courts (to make frivolous patent lawsuits harder). Those who use standards as Trojan horses to tax a lot of companies (the way MPEG-LA does) might lose their power, so the exploiters of such schemes panic a little. IAM responded with this:
The Prime Minister’s Office included the ADR proposal in its 2017 IP Promotion Plan. The document calls for the necessary amendments to the Patent Law to be submitted at the next ordinary session of the Diet, which is in January 2018. The plan states that the legal structure of the new system, which it maintains will not ‘abuse patent owner rights’, should be determined by March 2018.
As is usual and ever so typical from IAM, which already protested the Japanese courts’ hostility towards bad patent, it then veers off and turns into a megaphone of the abusers.
“As is usual and ever so typical from IAM, which already protested the Japanese courts’ hostility towards bad patent, it then veers off and turns into a megaphone of the abusers.”It ought to be clear by now that there’s an information war between “parasitic” elements in the patent world (trolls and law firms) and everybody else, namely companies that produce things and the public (which buys these things). If the USPTO fails to recognise and take this into account, it will be treated as nothing more than an extension of the “parasite”. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Courtroom, Google, Patents at 5:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Related: Google’s Stewardship of GNU/Linux (Android, Chromebooks and More) in Doubt After Company Resorts to Patent ‘First Strikes’

Reference: Anthony Levandowski. Credit: shinnygogo, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic licence.
Summary: Another look at cases where patents are used as a sort of revenge/leverage over completely unrelated disputes, or matters pertaining to alleged copying rather than patent infringement per se
THE LATEST in Google v Uber (Google by another name) was covered earlier this month. What’s noteworthy about this case is that it’s Google first time (as far as anyone is aware, based on public action) resorting to patent aggression — no matter the excuses/justifications for it — after nearly two decades on the scene. The USPTO had granted patents that Google essentially bought and a popular magazine has just expressed concerns that patent wars like these may “Kill the Self-Driving Car” (alluding directly to this case):
Google vs. Uber is just the first salvo in what could be a nasty legal tug-of-war over who makes the biggest stack of money on the future of moving people around.
The case has generally been reduced by about 75% (little of it left in terms of the number of patents involved/asserted) and the judge says “Waymo may be in “a world of trouble” if it can’t prove actual harm by Uber”.
“Google’s division sued Uber back in February,” it said, “alleging that one of its own former engineers, Anthony Levandowski, stole 14,000 proprietary files and took them to his new startup, Otto (which was quickly acquired by Uber). However, Uber says it never received them and so it couldn’t have and didn’t implement them into its own products, services, or prototypes.”
Whatever the case may be, resorting to patent warfare was a big mistake from Google and we hope the lawsuit will be withdrawn entirely. What Google did shows that it’s willing to use patents offensively and therefore Google cannot be trusted with any patents under its belt.
Incidentally, there is this similar case in Florida where Axon (Taser rebranded to dodge the bad publicly) wants a monopoly on deadly weapons and uses patents to enforce this monopoly. To quote:
Axon, the company formerly known as Taser, said Monday that it has successfully defeated a Florida company in a patent lawsuit over its electrical stun gun design. For Axon, the victory is the third against knockoff rival firms in the last seven years.
Last Friday, a federal judge in Florida found that a company called “Phazzer” (yes, like “phaser”) “engaged in a pattern of bad faith behavior” as the case has unfolded. Phazzer made a product strikingly similar to the Taser. And the case involving Axon was first filed in 2016, shortly after a Florida county sheriff decided to switch from Taser weapons to Phazzer (largely over cost reasons).
The term “Phazzer” probably predates Axon/Taser (science fiction movies) and the retreat to patents over potentially different gripes (like in the above-mentioned Levandowski dispute) shows that patents became more like a weapon of revenge. This oughtn’t happen. If almost anyone is infringing someone’s patent (or patents), then it’s just a tool of mass coercion. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 4:59 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Full paper [PDF]
Summary: The University of Wisconsin System, or the public state university system of Wisconsin (funded partly by taxpayers), turns into additional tax on taxpayers in an act of “crony capitalism” as it’s sometimes dubbed; Johns Hopkins has this potential too
TECHRIGHTS has, over the years, published many articles about US universities that use USPTO-granted patents to either feed patent trolls (through sales, i.e. de facto ‘armament’) or use separate entities to wage legal wars.
“Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures seems like another one of those entities using taxpayers money for privatisation with patents, under the familiar guise of “Technology Transfer”.”There’s an angle of gross abuse, waste and injustice to all this. It has become common knowledge in patent circles because the media occasionally writes about it and we don’t wish to repeat all the same arguments again. Instead, let’s focus on this press release that resurfaced earlier today (it was apparently first published 10 days ago).
Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures seems like another one of those entities using taxpayers money for privatisation with patents, under the familiar guise of “Technology Transfer”. The patents are now being passed to some company called CardioWise™, which may or may not use these patents (some of which pertaining to software) in litigation or threats thereof.
“Apple is just the latest among many victims, but the media seems to care only when Apple is on the receiving end…”More relevant to our case though is the lawsuit mentioned the other day for its effect on Apple (which corporate media absolutely loves writing about). The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF), essentially one of those loopholes for universities to act not like universities (which are conveniently funded by taxpayers, akin to corporate welfare), decided to attack these taxpayers with taxpayers-funded patents (e.g. by raising the price of products). Apple is just the latest among many victims, but the media seems to care only when Apple is on the receiving end and headlines that say “half a BEEELLION dollars” become possible. Shaun Nichols, who is based in San Francisco, explains the patent at hand as follows (there are diagrams too): “That patent is impenetrable if you’re not au fait with modern processor design but it’s pretty interesting. It basically describe a speculative execution system that predicts memory dependencies within a CPU pipeline. It uses a table to track potential dependencies to avoid misspeculations, which are costly to execution speed. Specifically, it looks out for load-store pairs that can cause a misspeculation.”
“If there is any technology transfer that merits advocating here, it’s a transfer from academic/scientific institutions back to the public that financially sustains them.”Joe Mullin, a trolls expert, wrote about this too, noting that “WARF was one of the first university institutions to dive heavily into patent litigation. In a stream of lawsuits, WARF has demanded that it be paid royalties on a vast number of semiconductors.”
We unfortunately need to continue to name and shame those who do this in very much the same way/reason we criticise the NSA for amassing patents and NASA selling patents to trolls [1, 2]. This, in our view, is misuse of public funds. If there is any technology transfer that merits advocating here, it’s a transfer from academic/scientific institutions back to the public that financially sustains them. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 4:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: EPO insiders (or affiliates nearby) explain just how bad patent quality has become — due to the management’s policies — and why it poses a threat to the attractiveness of the EPO (where the number of patent applications is already declining)
THIS is precisely what we’ve warned about. For nearly a decade of covering the EPO. The bar has been lowered so much that, according to IP Watch (earlier today), “Companies Prefer Trade Secrets To Patents To Protect Innovation, EUIPO Finds” (interpretation/analysis of the cause notwithstanding).
“In some people’s minds, the EPO is a failed institution whose remaining momentum is owed to its past glory.”They’re not wrong. Based on people whom I speak to regularly, the image of the EPO and the prestige — so to speak — of EPs just isn’t there anymore. In some people’s minds, the EPO is a failed institution whose remaining momentum is owed to its past glory. A lot of technical people in the UK read The Register and what they see there about strikes and tyranny not only repels them; it also harms the image of the EU. Such is the legacy of Battistelli…
A sister site of WIPR weighed in by mentioning a decision from Monday, albeit not directly noting that EPO grants of weak/bogus patents finally result in mass invalidations. It inevitably causes a reduction in the certainty of EPs and hence their overall value (real or perceived) — something that no stakeholder should be pleased with.
To quote:
A European Patent Office (EPO) Board of Appeal has published its decision that invalidated a patent owned by Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS) which covered a blockbuster anti-cancer drug.
Published on Monday, July 24, the decision invalidated European Patent number 1169038, a composition-of-matter patent covering dasatinib.
Dasatinib is a targeted therapy used to treat leukaemia sold under the brand name Sprycel. In 2016, the drug obtained worldwide revenues of $1.8 billion.
So another EP bites the dust. It should never have been granted and we can expect a lot more of that now that examiners are pressured to 'produce' more.
As mentioned here yesterday (we still hope that someone will leak the full text to us), EPO management now conflates time with quality. People were rather shocked to learn this. As the following comment put it:
That last comment from Anonymous made my jaw drop. Assessing “quality” on the basis of what one can measure? Seriously?
Amongst the things one can measure is the gap in time between paying the search fee and getting the search report.
Amongst the things one cannot measure is the “quality” of the search.
But nevertheless, EPO management announces that quality has increased, purely because the search reports are issuing faster.
What a joke!
Referring to the Croatian/German scandal we are covering (there's a lot more on the way), someone then wrote this:
Apparently, the content of the search or examination is of little interest to the department responsible for quality control, important is that they are out fast!
This sounds like the pioneering approach adopted by some smaller national IPOs a few years ago. Nice to see such techniques being successfully exported to the EPO.
“The acceleration of the administrative part of the proceedings, and thus the overall decision-making process on the merits of the matter, is in the interest of both the requester and the holder of the trademark.
In other words, upon receipt of a request for cancellation of a trademark, if it is in order, as required by Article 47 of the Trademark Act (Official Gazette 173/03, 76/07 and 30/09), the Office is required to forward the request to the holder of the trademark without any examination of the substantive merits, which was also done in this case.”
http://www.portaloko.hr/clanak/navode-oko-koruptivnih-djelatnosti-uz-slucaj-frgacic-u-potpunosti-odbacujemo/0/3812/
Since this whole threat is so old and marginalised (the ‘Kats’ give no newer opportunity to comment on EPO scandals without going off topic), we wish to reproduce today’s remaining comments as well (all 3 of them). Alison Brimelow (Battistelli’s predecessor) was mentioned below:
I see now that I was too quick to express my disgust, how the EPO measures “quality” of assessing patentability.
If I gather it right, the EPO does not claim that search quality has improved. Rather, the assertion is that it has “never been higher”. The difference is crucial. For any assessment that requires more than bean-counting or number crunching, the “never been higher” mantra is a safe one to utter, regardless how much it flies in the face of what we all know. Still, once BB defines “quality” as “timeliness”, he can of course get the answer he craves.
Thus, Donald Trump can safely assert that there has never been a US President of higher “quality” than himself, because never has a President spent fewer working days in The White House. He must be the greatest Decider of all time, right?
Or the NHS can safely assert that the “quality” of orthopaedic (or brain) surgery in English hospitals has “never been higher” because each patient today spends fewer days in a hospital ward than used to be the case.
As Alison Brimelow urged, getting EPO search reports out on time is important. But the core quality of the search is something entirely different. Just suppose that, even as we speak, “core quality” is going down, just as fast as “timeliness” is going up. If the EPO President defines “QQuality” as the aggregate of core quality and timeliness, then “QQuality has never been higher” than it is today, even while core quality is worse today than it has ever been.
Then an explanation of why quick decisions are not necessarily desirable — a point made recently by Thorsten Bausch (Hoffmann Eitle):
It is quite ironical that at the time when the EPO pushes for quick grant, the UK IPO has published a blog warning about the deleterious effects a quick prosecution might have.
https://ipo.blog.gov.uk/2017/07/13/queuing-the-rule-of-6/
The most relevant part:
Can this [the grant procedure]be sped up?
Yes, but you should think carefully about whether a fast grant is in your best interests. For example, the earlier your patent application is published, the earlier the technology is in the public domain [at least quick publication can be avoided, as eventually all applications are published at 18 months].
Many applicants are happy to proceed to grant at a slower pace. This enables them to develop and plan the commercialisation and marketing of their invention, whilst the patent application process continues. It also gives them time to determine whether their invention is commercially viable before committing to a greater financial outlay.
Comment:
I doubt that anything more can be said, but that the communication between the EPO and some of the national patent offices appears to be sub-optimal, to say the least!
Finally, some figures from someone who knows things from the inside (on the face of it):
What people should know is that examiners do not have the time to do their job. Let me explain:
-examiners have an objective at the beginning of the year, let us say 100 files.
-these 100 files should be examination and search, e.g. 50 searches and 50 examinations or 60/40, etc…
-only end actions count in examination, so the 50 examinations can be 50 grants or 40 grants and 10 refusals, etc…
-if you don’t get your objective, you have a problem.
Basically, a few years ago the objective was reasonable. Say, you got 100 files to do and you could end up with 60 searches, 35 grants and 5 refusals.
Today, we have the combination of several factors at the same time:
-it is not 100, it was increased to 120 or 140 or more (examiners have no say in that, they can object an unreasonable increase but the complain will not lead anywhere). Let us say 120.
-the office is hiring plenty of new examiners, they get a high proportion of the searches (because they are starting, they have no stock).
-consequently, experience examiners get less searches. For example, for the 120 files objective, you would normally need 75 searches, but your director has only 30 in stock for you for the whole year. Suddenly, you need to do 120-30=90 examination files.
-now for the good part: only final actions count, but refusals take at least 6 months more. You need to summon for oral proceedings. You can either do your job correctly (and then you end up with 30 searches, 50 grants and 40 summons and are 40 files short or your objective as the summons do not count) or grant a few more “borderline” files to get to your objective.
I think that the only way out would be if the industry (applicants, representatives) would start to file oppositions massively. We still take the time to do a proper job on opposition files, while we don’t on pure examination files.
Very interesting and important comments have been relegated to a thread from about four months ago, buried deep in pagination (due to the number of comments posted there since). It probably won’t be the end of this thread about how quality of patents at the EPO went downhill. We’ll continue to keep an eye on followups because therein exist opportunities to pull anonymous insights from inside the Office. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend