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 23/1/2018: Castle Game Engine 6.4, Qt 5.9.4, SQLite 3.22.0

    Links for the day



  2. Confidence in European Patents (EPs) is Eroding and Stakeholders Are Already Suffering

    The rush to grant lots and lots of patents at the EPO is already taking its toll; quality is declining, decisions to grant are being overturned, and the already-overburdened appeal boards are unable to catch up



  3. Even More Uncertain a Future for the Independence of the EPO Boards of Appeal as Judge Corcoran Too Gets Sent to 'Exile'

    The attack on supposedly independent judges at the EPO escalates further; the judge whom the EPO was ordered to reinstate (by ILO) is being constantly pushed around, not just legally bullied



  4. The Response to Accusations of Censorship by Team UPC? Yet More Censorship to Shield UPC From Criticism

    The Empire of Lies upon which the Unified Patent Court (UPC) was conceived is being exposed for its lies; The Empire Strikes Back with yet more censorship



  5. Links 22/1/2018: Linux 4.15 Delayed Again, Libinput 1.9.901

    Links for the day



  6. Team UPC Calls Critics of the UPC Idiots, Deletes Their Comments, and Blocks Them

    A new low for Team UPC, which is unable to cope with reality and has begun literally mocking and deleting comments of people who speak out truths



  7. How the Opposition to CRISPR Patents at the EPO Sent Shockwaves Through the Industry

    Additional reports/coverage on the EPO (European Patent Office) revoking Broad Institute's CRISPR patent show that the issue at hand isn't just one sole patent but the whole class/family of patents



  8. Unified Patents Says That RPX, Which Might Soon be Owned by Patent Trolls, Paid Patent Trolls Hundreds of Millions of Dollars

    Unified Patents, which helps crush software patents, takes note of RPX’s financial statements, which reveal the great extent to which RPX actually helped trolls rather than stop them



  9. IAM Together With Its Partner, IIPCC, is Lobbying the USPTO to Crush PTAB and Restore Patent Chaos

    Having handled over 8,000 petitions (according to Professor Lemley's Lex Machina), PTAB champions patent quality at the USPTO, so front groups of the litigation 'industry' creep in and attempt to lobby the likely next Director of the USPTO (inciting him against PTAB, as usual)



  10. Software Patents Are Still Dropping Like Flies in 2018, Thanks to Alice v CLS Bank (SCOTUS, 2014) and Section 101 (USPTO)

    Section 101 (§ 101) is thriving in the sense that it belatedly throws thousands of patents -- and frivolous lawsuits that depend on them -- down the chute; the patent trolls and their allies in the patent microcosm are very furious and they blame PTAB for actually doing its job (enforcing Section 101 when petitioned to do so)



  11. Patent Troll Finjan Looks Like It's About to Collapse, But Patent Maximalists Exploit It for Software Patents Promotion

    Patent trolls are struggling in their use of software patents; few (if any) of their patents are upheld as valid and those that miraculously remain in tact become the subject of fascination if not obsession among trolls' advocates



  12. The Attacks on PTAB Are Slowing Down and Attempts to Shield Oneself From Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) Are Failing

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reapplies patent eligibility tests/guidelines in order to squash likely invalid patents; The litigation 'industry' is not happy about it, but its opposition to PTAB is also losing steam



  13. Links 21/1/2018: Wine 3.0 Coverage, KaOS 2018.01, Red Hat Among 'Admired Companies'

    Links for the day



  14. Blockchain Patents Are a Catastrophe in the Making as Trolls and Aggressors Accumulate Them

    As patents pertaining to blockchains continue to be granted -- even in defiance of Alice/Section 101 -- it seems likely that patent wars will sooner or later erupt, involving some large banks, IBM, and patent trolls associated with the notorious Erich Spangenberg



  15. Qualcomm/Broadcom/NXP Combination Would Become a Disastrous Patent Thicket Which Benefits Nobody

    Worried by the prospect of mega-mergers and takeovers which would put far too much market power (and monopoly through patents) in one place, governments and corporations speak out



  16. Patent Litigation in East Asia: Huawei, Samsung, HTC, Nintendo and COLOPL

    A quick look at some high-profile cases in which large Asian firms are embroiled; it seems clear that litigation activities have shifted eastwards (where actual production is done)



  17. Patent Litigation in the US is Down Sharply and Patent Trolls' Demise Has Much to Do With It

    Docket Navigator and Lex Machina both show a significant decline in litigation -- a trend which is likely to carry on now that TC Heartland is in tact (not for just half a year but a whole year) and PTAB completes another record year



  18. Cheating the US Patent System is a Lot Harder After TC Heartland

    Some new examples of tricks (and sometimes cheats) attempted by patent claimants and their representatives; it does not go as well as they hoped



  19. RPX Might Soon be Owned by Patent Troll Erich Spangenberg

    RPX, whose top executives are leaving and business is gradually dying, might end up as another 'asset' of patent trolls



  20. Patent Quality (Not Numbers) as an Asset: Oppositions, Appeals and Rejections at the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli wants a rubber-stamping operation (like INPI) rather than a functional patent office, but oppositions at the Office prove to be fruitful and many erroneously-granted patents are -- by extrapolation -- already being revoked (affecting, in retrospect, Battistelli's so-called 'results')



  21. Links 19/1/2018: Linux Journalism Fund, Grsecurity is SLAPPing Again

    Links for the day



  22. The EPO Ignores This Week's Decision Which Demonstrates Patent Scope Gone Awry; Software Patents Brought Up Again

    The worrisome growth of European Patents (EPs) — a 40% jump in one year in spite of decline in the number of patent applications — is a symptom of the poor judgment, induced largely by bad policies that impede examiners’ activities for the sake of so-called ‘production’; this week's decision regarding CRISPR is another wake-up call and software patents too need to be abolished (as a whole), in lieu with the European Patent Convention (EPC)



  23. WesternGeco v ION Geophysical (at the US Supreme Court) Won't Affect Patent Scope

    As WesternGeco v ION Geophysical is the main if not sole ‘major’ patent case that the US Supreme Court will deal with, it seems safe to say that nothing substantial will change for patent scope in the United States this year



  24. Links 18/1/2018: MenuLibre 2.1.4, Git 2.16 Released

    Links for the day



  25. Microsoft, Masking/Hiding Itself Behind Patent Trolls, is Still Engaging in Patent Extortion

    A review of Microsoft's ugly tactics, which involve coercion and extortion (for businesses to move to Azure and/or for OEMs to preload Microsoft software) while Microsoft-connected patent trolls help hide the "enforcement" element in this whole racket



  26. Patent Prosecution Highway: Low-Quality Patents for High-Frequency Patent Aggressors

    The EPO's race to the bottom of patent quality, combined with a "need for speed", is a recipe for disaster (except for litigation firms, patent bullies, and patent trolls)



  27. Press Coverage About the EPO Board Revoking Broad's CRISPR Patent

    Even though there's some decent coverage about yesterday's decision (e.g. from The Scientist), the patent microcosm googlebombs the news with stuff that serves to distract from or distort the outcome



  28. Links 17/1/2018: HHVM 3.24, WordPress 4.9.2

    Links for the day



  29. No Patents on Life (CRISPR), Said EPO Boards of Appeal Just a Few Hours Ago

    Broad spectacularly loses its key case, which may soon mean that any other patents on CRISPR too will be considered invalid



  30. Only Two Weeks on the Job, Judge Patrick Corcoran is Already Being Threatened by EPO Management

    The attack on a technical judge who is accused of relaying information many people had already relayed anyway (it was gossip at the whole Organisation for years) carries on as he is again being pushed around, just as many people predicted


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