09.17.17

Why the Mohawk Tribe Should Fire Its Lawyers and Dump the Patents Which Now Tarnish Its Name

Posted in America, Patents at 2:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The quick buck isn’t worth the damage done to the Mohawks’ reputation

Mohawk

Summary: In order to dodge the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with its Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), the Mohawk tribe is being exploited — very much in direct detriment to its reputation and status

LAST week we wrote about the Mohawk people being used by vicious corporations that only need the Mohawk people because of corporate greed. We were actually very surprised that the Mohawk people had fallen for it (or rather their lawyers had plotted this). We last wrote about that six days ago.

Since then, much has been said about the subject. We certainly hope that the Mohawks will rethink the whole thing. Published by Mike Masnick on Wednesday was this article calling the whole thing a “scam” (in the headline). The Mohawk tribe ought to take this as a sign and fire the dumb (if not corruptible) lawyer/s. The tribe should then toss out these patents, thereby signaling to anyone else who thinks about such a scam that it will end up badly. To quote Masnick:

We’ve written a bunch over the past few years about the so-called Inter Partes Review (IPR) process at the US Patent Office. In short, this is a process that was implemented in the patent reform bill back in 2010 allowing people and companies to ask a special “review board” — the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) — at the Patent Office to review a patent to determine if it was valid. This was necessary because so many absolutely terrible patents were being granted, and then being used to shake down tons of companies and hold entire industries hostage. So, rather than fix the patent review process, Congress created an interesting work-around: at least make it easier for the Patent Office to go back and check to see if it got it right the first time.

Last year, part of this process was challenged at the Supreme Court and upheld as valid. However, the whole IPR is still very much under attack. There’s another big Supreme Court case on the docket right now which argues that IPR is unconstitutional (the short argument is that you can already challenge patents in court, and by taking them to an administrative board, it creates an unconstitutional taking of property without a jury). There are also some attempts at killing the IPR in Congress.

Joe Mullin, a trolls expert, hasn’t missed this news either. Several days ago he said that a “[d]rug company hands patents off to Native American tribe to avoid challenge” (PTAB). We reckon that the Mohawk tribe isn’t at fault here. It just doesn’t know it has a lawyer who exploits them and shames them in the process. Some people have rightly pointed out that this scam might have been enabled unintentionally (without the Mohawks intending to do harm). To quote Mullin:

A drug company has found a novel way to avoid challenges to some of its most prized patents: handing them off to a Native American tribe for safe-keeping.

On Friday, Allergan disclosed that it gave six patents covering its top-selling dry eye drug Restasis to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in Northern New York. The deal will provide the tribe with $13.75 million immediately and an annual royalty of $15 million as long as the patents are valid. The new deal was soon reported in both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Allergan made the unprecedented move because it will prevent any meaningful challenge to the company’s patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB. Challenging patents at the PTAB in a process called “inter partes review” (IPR) was authorized by the America Invents Act of 2011, and the IPR process has significantly changed the patent landscape since then. While invalidating a patent in district court typically costs millions of dollars, invalidating a patent via IPR can happen for the relative bargain of a few hundred thousand dollars.

A very detailed analysis from CCIA‘s Josh Landau was published to explain why the US legal system is disgraced when patents can enjoy immunity by having dodgy entities exploit Natives. To quote some key bits:

What do Seymour Cray’s high-performance computing research company SRC Labs and drug manufacturer Allergan have in common? Both SRC Labs and Allergan sold patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, then licensed them back from the tribe, in order to use tribal sovereign immunity to prevent challenges to their patents as invalid.

[...]

Sovereign immunity is not a topic that appears on many Patent Law syllabi. But in the past year, it’s become a more pressing issue when it comes to patents. First, state universities used it to avoid challenges to their own patents. And now, sovereign immunity is being sold to completely unrelated companies.

The University of Florida Research Foundation (UFRF) is a non-profit foundation established by the University in order to “to promote, encourage and provide assistance to the research activities of the University faculty, staff and students.” As part of this, they patent inventions by UF faculty and staff, and license those inventions.

Covidien (a medical device manufacturer) had a patent license agreement with UFRF. UFRF sued Covidien, and in response Covidien defended themselves by filing inter partes reviews (IPRs) against the UFRF patents. Back in January, UFRF claimed that, as a state entity, they were immune from IPR under Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed and dismissed the IPR on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

Later in the year, a similar situation occurred, this time featuring the University of Maryland and NeoChord, another medical company. Maryland had given an exclusive license to several of their patents to Harpoon Medical, which sued NeoChord. NeoChord filed an IPR on the patents, and again, the PTAB dismissed the IPR on Eleventh Amendment grounds.

There are a few other instances of Eleventh Amendment immunity claims that may come up, including one by the University of Minnesota against Ericsson.

[...]

The tribe’s FAQ on this program is interesting. I don’t know if they got the wrong impression from their lawyers, just misunderstood, or what, but they claim that by doing this, they can help “protect[] from patent trolls.”

Bluntly put, preventing patents from being IPRed does not protect anyone from patent trolls—it protects patent trolls from IPRs.

The tribe also claims that IPR is “very unfair” and allows patent trolls to void valid patents. (Patent trolls do not generally try to invalidate patents, because they usually don’t have any products to be sued on.) The tribe also claims that they’ll file to have their patents reviewed in federal court, which, again, does not happen.

If IPR is unfair, why does the Federal Circuit affirm three quarters of appealed PTAB decisions? The PTAB is getting decisions right, there’s just a lot of invalid patents out there to be challenged.

On the other side of the fence, as usual, there are PTAB-bashing blogs like Patently-O/Crouch, who uses any opportunity to undermine PTAB. Silly US immunity from PTAB (e.g. for universities) means that dodgy companies now hide behind Natives. We have already explained why universities should enjoy no such immunity. Here is what Crouch wrote about it some days ago: (the typical PTAB bashing when he’s not carrying out automated assessment of words in patents)

US Law generally holds that Indian Tribes are “Sovereign Powers” that “possess immunity from suit,” although only “to the extent that Congress has not abrogated that immunity and the tribe has not clearly waived its immunity.” Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino and Resort 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010), cert denied. As the Supreme Court wrote, “without congressional authorization,” the “Indian Nations are exempt from suit.” United States v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 309 U.S., at 512 (1940).

The Mohawk tribe’s lawyer is a either fooled or a fooling actor. Whatever it is, the Mohawk need to get out of this PR debacle. They are only supported by sites that favour patent trolls. The Mohawk tribe’s lawyer was apparently told that this stops patent trolls, but the very opposite will be true. It actually does the very opposite, especially if other patent holders follow the example/tactics of Allergan/the Mohawks. Here is how IAM put it:

The recent news that pharma giant Allergan and tech company SRC have licensed patents to a Native American tribe in an attempt to protect the patents from inter partes review (IPR) has once again catapulted the controversial post-issuance review process into the wider business press. With the Supreme Court due to hear Oil States, a case concerning the constitutionality of IPRs, in its next term, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is in the spotlight like never before.

Since the move by the pharma giant was announced early last week there has been an avalanche of press and blog coverage (you can read what this blog had to say here and another piece on Indian tribes and sovereign immunity, which is particularly worth reading, here). The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe was clearly unimpressed by some of the ensuing coverage and so yesterday put out a statement in what it described as a clarification. Clearly keen to play to the patent gallery the statement ended with: “A strong patent system is in everyone’s best interest, which is why patent protection is one of our original constitutional rights.”

IAM says that the “Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is in the spotlight like never before” while it actively participates in PTAB bashing, as we shall show in our next post.

Sadly, corporate media too plays a role in misinformation. Consider this coverage from the New York Times 9 days ago. The headline in its own right is wrong. That’s not “how to protect a drug” but how to shield bogus patents from quality control (PTAB).

Here is what the Times said:

The drugmaker Allergan announced Friday that it had transferred its patents on a best-selling eye drug to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe in upstate New York — an unusual gambit to protect the drug from a patent dispute.

Under the deal, which involves the dry-eye drug Restasis, Allergan will pay the tribe $13.75 million. In exchange, the tribe will claim sovereign immunity as grounds to dismiss a patent challenge through a unit of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The tribe will lease the patents back to Allergan, and will receive $15 million in annual royalties as long as the patents remain valid.

What kind of a scam is this and who seduced the Mohawks into this PR disaster? Whoever or whatever it is, they need to get out of it in order to (maybe, if it’s not too late) undo the damage. Media generally regards this as evidence of Mohawks being unintelligent, or even worse: mischievous and greedy.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2017/09/17/mohawk-tribe-and-allergan/

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. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 14: The Notorious Revolving Door

    The Benoît Battistelli-António Campinos shuffle left some people in the EPO’s upper management better off; they’re being rewarded for complicity, so there’s no incentive to do the right thing but to do the wrong thing



  2. Links 11/4/2021: GnuPG 2.3.0, Linux 5.13 Additions

    Links for the day



  3. All EPO Articles Are Available Over Gemini Protocol

    For lighter and more privacy-preserving access to Techrights use the Gemini capsule instead of the Web site



  4. Judge and JURI

    The Committee on Legal Affairs, a.k.a JURI, meets the EPO tomorrow (in 24 hours); will abuses by António Campinos and Benoît Battistelli be brought up?



  5. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 13: The Failed Promise of a “Good Governance” Guru…

    Before becoming an absent-minded Vice-President of António Campinos Christoph Ernst was posing as the very opposite of what he would become



  6. Gemini Gateways for IPFS

    The World Wide Web is fine for a lot of things, but for controversial publications and publications that invoke the 'wrath' of corporations/states/plutocracy we must look beyond the traditional protocols, choosing decentralised means and self-hosted means of publication (instead or at the very least in conjunction)



  7. Challenging Times for EPO Management

    A discussion of the status quo at Europe's second-largest (but scarcely-understood) institution, subjected to a JURI hearing tomorrow afternoon



  8. “The Fighters of Freedom”

    Some anime fans have made this video about recent events



  9. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, April 10, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, April 10, 2021



  10. [Meme] Bundestagate Series Spoiler

    The chain of command/s at the EPO typically leads to major tragedy



  11. Breaking News: Campinos to Appear Before the Legals Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on Monday 12 April

    "Some MEPs have been briefed about ongoing governance deficits at the EPO, in particular the lack of GDPR compliance and the sell-out of "digital sovereignty" to Microsoft, but it remains to be seen whether or not they will dare to bring these issues up during the hearing."



  12. Pro-FSF Petition (“An Open Letter in Support of Richard Matthew Stallman Being Reinstated by the Free Software Foundation”) Tops 6,200 Signatures

    Monopolies and their media, along with their NGOs, have spoken and incited based on falsehoods; people now respond so the hate letter has a real crisis



  13. Links 10/4/2021: osbuild 28, KDE Frameworks 5.81.0

    Links for the day



  14. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 12: A Worthy Successor to His Mentor?

    We examine the role of Christoph Ernst in EPO management, both in the Benoît Battistelli era and the António Campinos era (plenty to hide)



  15. USPTO for Monopolies, Keeping GNU/Linux in the Dark

    Growing evidence of gross discrimination against GNU/Linux (or Free software, even BSD/UNIX) users at the USPTO is too hard to ignore; some people out there challenge the Office over this travesty



  16. Accessibility and Availability First

    To make Techrights more widely accessible and more difficult to block/censor we've been making further changes, including self-hosting where possible



  17. Self-Hosting Videos With Free Formats and Animated Previews, Watermarks/Logos and Translucency

    We examine the power of video editing with ffmpeg, chained with command-line scripting and HTML5 features



  18. Links 10/4/2021: Linux on M1, Wine 6.6, ClamAV 0.103.2

    Links for the day



  19. Lunduke: On Mob Justice in the Tech Industry

    A new video from the former Microsofter who fears the phenomenon that’s adopted by companies like IBM



  20. IRC Proceedings: Friday, April 09, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, April 09, 2021



  21. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag — Appendix (Benoît Battistelli's Vichy Syndrome): Georges Henri Léon Battistelli and Charles Robert Battistelli

    Local copies with evidence of or something concrete about Benoît Battistelli’s connection to unsavoury — and by today’s standards outright fascistic — politics



  22. IBM Doubles Down on Masters Being an Acceptable Word in the Context of Technology

    3 days after this post which disproves IBM's stance or shows its double standards it once again says “Masters” in its official blog (won’t that offend and alienate some people as they insist?)



  23. Hate Letter Against Richard Matthew Stallman (RMS) Backfired So Spectacularly That Signers Asked to Revoke Their Own Signatures and the List Was Then Frozen Permanently (Updated)

    "An open letter in support of Richard Matthew Stallman being reinstated by the Free Software Foundation" tops 6,100 signatures (graph generated just moments ago)



  24. EPOLeaks on Misleading the Bundestag -- Part 11: The BMJV's Tweedledee: Dr Christoph Ernst

    The right-hand man of António Campinos plays a role similar to that of Herr Lutz before him



  25. Links 9/4/2021: Tanglet 1.6.0 and HPVM 1.0

    Links for the day



  26. The Libel Against Richard Stallman Did Not Age Well

    Almost 2 years down the line libel about the founder of the FSF remains online, uncorrected (in sites funded by Microsoft and IBM)



  27. The Letter in Support of the FSF and Richard Stallman is Backed by the International Community, Not American Monopolies and Nationalistic Elements

    Free software is for everybody to use, internationally, it is not the asset of a bunch of current and old monopolists (connected to the US military) that also control the media; the nature of the signatures says that out loud



  28. Gemini Over IPFS (Decentralised Web, Accessed Over Gemini Protocol)

    The Gemini protocol (gemini://) can already be used to fetch (at the back end) and present objects from a P2P-like network; we're currently exploring practical use cases and possibilities



  29. News Sites That Talk About Patents Have Become Shameless Self-Promotion 'Plugs' by Law Firms (and Sometimes Outright 'Spam' for Litigation)

    The sources of news about patent affairs have dried up; sites that actually used to investigate and report facts have since then shut down or defected to the Public Relations/marketing industry



  30. Links 9/4/2021: Kubernetes 1.21 and FFmpeg 4.4 Released

    Links for the day


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

Recent Posts