EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

08.04.17

The United States Supreme Court Should Further Restrict Patent Scope and Not Question PTAB’s Work (Which Merely Enforces That Scope)

Posted in America, Apple, Courtroom, Patents, Samsung at 4:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

PTAB has probably been the best when it comes to enforcing Supreme Court decisions such as Alice

United States Supreme Court

Summary: A glance at the ongoing debate over which patent case/s the Justices of the United States Supreme Court should look at next

PTAB is a good, valuable ally of the software industry, for it invalidates a lot of software patents. PTAB is defended by almost every software company but protested against by the patent microcosm (striving to tax software companies).

“PTAB is defended by almost every software company but protested against by the patent microcosm (striving to tax software companies).”Based on this new press release, a lawsuit which was mentioned here earlier this week got escalated by the defendant, which sought help from PTAB. Taser (now renamed) is battling to dodge PTAB’s scrutiny (as it can potentially invalidate the patent they use aggressively) and this time it got its way. But that’s not the end of it. PTAB is generally a get-out clause in case a patent lawsuit is meritless based on the patent/s at hand. Failing PTAB, there are still judges and sometimes also a jury to determine whether a patent asserted is bogus or not. Just because an examiner at the USPTO decided to grant a patent doesn’t necessarily mean it’s both novel and patent-eligible. Prior art is sometimes discovered in court proceedings and expert witnesses can attest to the triviality of some patents. In some cases, the trial itself constitutes misconduct; we gave an example of that yesterday, citing Patently-O, whose contributor David did a followup. “First off,” he wrote, “according to the panel-majority, mere negligence by litigation counsel is enough to justify an adverse inference under the law of this regional circuit…”

“As we explained here before, Patently-O is no friend of PTAB and certainly it is a friend of software patents.”Over the years we have given many examples of misconduct, e.g. companies asserting patents that they don’t even ‘own’ (are assigned). In some cases, expired patents are being used to intimidate companies.

As we explained here before, Patently-O is no friend of PTAB and certainly it is a friend of software patents. Moreover, its lead writer (Crouch) is still trying to slow down or discourage CAFC's support for PTAB. Yesterday he did that again. To quote the relevant paragraph:

A third petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court has now been filed stemming from the Federal Circuit’s Rule 36 Debacle. Despite the need for clear guidance on the implementation of AIA Trials, most such appeals are being decided by the Federal Circuit without any opinion. I have argued that the process violates a provision of the Patent Act that requires an the court to issue an opinion in cases on appeal from the Patent & Trademark Office.

We already wrote extensively about why it’s justified. There’s a massive ‘scatterback’ of appeals from PTAB and CAFC cannot possibly issue a pertinent written opinion for each individual appeal. Crouch should know that. He’s a law professor, but at the same time he’s also immersed in the patent microcosm, which hates PTAB with a very great passion (to the point of insulting judges).

“He’s a law professor, but at the same time he’s also immersed in the patent microcosm, which hates PTAB with a very great passion (to the point of insulting judges).”The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is already busy with more important matters, such as patent scope and patent trolls. In fact, it has already deemed business methods-related patents invalid. There’s Bilski and Alice. Now it’s down to the courts below SCOTUS to obey precedents/prior decisions. But Crouch wonders aloud whether the matter will be revisited yet again:

Although the Federal Circuit walked through its Alice/Mayo analysis, I expect that a more infringer-friendly panel would have almost certainly sided with the district court. Now, Openet has petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari – arguing that the Federal Circuit improperly reached beyond the clearly overbroad claims when making its decision.

“Rao decided to write for The Hill about an Apple case against an Android OEM.”Experience suggests that almost always the SCOTUS will overrule the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). But does it need to revisit something it already dealt with? Even Crouch touches that aspect (see the above post).

In other news, yesterday there was a publication from Nagesh Rao, who is described as “a former U.S. patent examiner and senior policy advisor with the Department of Commerce-U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. He represents the United States as an Eisenhower Fellow and advisor to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Lemelson Invention Ambassadors Program.”

“Rao explains that “if not for low-quality patents […] we would not even be having this discussion right now.””Rao decided to write for The Hill about an Apple case against an Android OEM. It was the biggest Android OEM at the time the lawsuit was filed. He said that the “Supreme Court could strengthen the patent system” and by strengthen he means make more strict, not what “STRONGER” means in that infamous bill (“The STRONGER Patents Act” is reducing their quality to spur frivolous litigation).

Rao explains that “if not for low-quality patents […] we would not even be having this discussion right now.”

People inside the EPO have told us that highly dubious patents (EPs) are being granted to Apple in Europe as well. It’s a global problem.

Patent quality is brought up by Rao as follows:

I mentioned patent quality is at the core of this case. As a former U.S. patent examiner that’s an issue I feel very strongly about. After all, if not for low-quality patents (it’s not just my opinion, the U.S. appeals court that originally found some of Apple’s controversial patents to be invalid would likely agree), we would not even be having this discussion right now.

The Supreme Court should hear this case and seize the opportunity to defend higher patent quality for a number of reasons – an issue that the USPTO has for years attempted to address, and made great strides in assuring. And in what some view as a positive step towards review, on Monday, the Court asked the acting U.S. Solicitor General to weigh in on the case.

We certainly hope that the Supreme Court will assess this case and overturn it in favour of Free software (Android). In this day and age when software is free (usually in terms of freedom and also price) there’s no room for all this ‘taxation’ by declining firms — at least in the mobile sector — such as Apple.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 23/3/2019: Falkon 3.1.0 and Tails 3.13.1

    Links for the day



  2. The Unified Patent Court is Dead, But Doubts Remain Over the EPO's Appeal Boards' Ability to Rule Independently Against Patents on Nature and Code

    Patents used to cover physical inventions (such as engines); nowadays this just isn't the case anymore and judges who can clarify these questions lack the freedom to think outside the box (and disobey patent maximalists' dogma)



  3. Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

    There's no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there's nothing even remotely like that



  4. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  5. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  6. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  7. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  8. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  9. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  10. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  11. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  12. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  13. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  14. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  15. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  16. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  17. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  18. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  19. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  20. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  21. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  22. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  23. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  24. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  25. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  26. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day



  27. The EPO and the USPTO Are Granting Fake Patents on Software, Knowing That Courts Would Reject These

    Office management encourages applicants to send over patent applications that are laughable while depriving examiners the freedom and the time they need to reject these; it means that loads of bogus patents are being granted, enshrined as weapons that trolls can use to extort small companies outside the courtroom



  28. CommunityBridge is a Cynical Microsoft-Funded Effort to Show Zemlin Works for 'Community', Not Microsoft

    After disbanding community participation in the Board (but there are Microsoft staff on the Board now) the "Linux Foundation" (or Zemlin PAC) continues to take Microsoft money and polishes or launders that as "community"



  29. Links 14/3/2019: GNOME 3.32 and Mesa 19.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  30. EPO 'Results' Are, As Usual, Not Measured Correctly

    The supranational monopoly, a monopoly-granting authority, is being used by António Campinos to grant an insane amount of monopolies whose merit is dubious and whose impact on Europe will be a net negative


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts