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

09.23.17

The Mohawk-PTAB Fiasco Threatens the Tribe’s Reputation More Than It Threatens PTAB

Posted in America, Patents at 8:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Since the patents are not even assigned to the Mohawk people, this whole “scam” accomplishes nothing

Suscol Intertribal Council
Photo credit: Sarah Stierch (CC BY 4.0)

Summary: In an effort to dodge scrutiny from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Allergan Plc offloaded a lot of negative publicity onto the Mohawk people, owing primarily to the Mowhawk Tribe’s general counsel, Dale White

THE Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) has been making many headlines recently. The patent microcosm is trying as hard as it can to kill it. It cannot kill the people inside the PTAB (whom it vainly refers to as a “death squad”), so it wants to kill the entire institution. It’s appalling.

We were very sad to see the Mohawk people exploited, or virtually used as a sort of ‘instrument’ for killing PTAB. As some people have put it, the Mohawk tribe is now facilitating a "scam" (not our word). Don’t expect the patent microcosm to admit this. In fact, in some comments that we saw over the past week, all criticisms of this ploy are being dismissed or played down as being just a substance-less cry of “scam”. Far from it!

Earlier this week, in a site of the patent microcosm, Philippe J.C. Signore from Oblon wrote about this as a case for refreshing Constitutional Law recollection. Well, as patent radicalism is waning (the system has improved in recent years) they will try to crush the system. Here is what Signore wrote:

Article III also states that the judicial power of the U.S. is vested in the federal courts and judges. In its brief filed in August 2017, Oil States argued that IPR proceedings are unconstitutional because they are set up as adversarial judicial trials (as opposed to examination proceedings) of granted private property rights, and as such should be handled by Article III judges and not “administrative agency employees who are beholden to Executive Branch officials.” Oil States also argued that IPR trials resolve questions of novelty or obviousness, which “are precisely the same questions that English jurors resolved,” such that “they fall within the Seventh Amendment’s scope.”

The Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution has also made the patent headlines lately. This amendment bans lawsuits against individual states of the union, unless the immunity is waived. The immunity stems from the principle that states entered the federal system on the condition of keeping their sovereignty intact. In 1999, the Supreme Court interpreted the immunity of the Eleventh amendment as extending to state universities and agencies, recognized as arms of the state. As such, state universities cannot be sued for patent or trademark infringement (unless the immunity is waived or abrogated by Congress).

Earlier this year, in Covidien v. University of Florida, the PTAB refused to institute an IPR because it held that the patent owner, the University of Florida, should benefit from the immunity afforded to the States by the Eleventh Amendment. The PTAB reasoned that the “considerable resemblance” between IPR proceedings and civil litigation justified application of the sovereign immunity to the administrative proceeding. If this decision is affirmed, it would place state universities in the very enviable position of being able to sue for patent infringement in a federal court—without being subject to IPRs before the PTAB, and without being subject to infringement lawsuits.

Better change jobs if one relies on just suing lots of companies and trying to dodge legal challenges.

Three days ago we saw Susan Decker from the Wall Street media relaying the offensive analogy from a corrupt judge, who called PTAB a “death squad”. She wrote about the Mohawk fiasco and cited an extremist “who founded a group called US Inventor Inc.” (laughing stock of a tiny group). Why did Bloomberg decide to quote radicals like Paul Morinville? Or disgraced judges? Is that all that’s left to discredit PTAB by?

Decker said that “Allergan Plc’s decision to pay a Native American tribe $15 million a year rather than let one of its blockbuster drugs be scrutinized by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is part of a backlash against an agency review panel that has been dubbed a “death squad.””

This so-called ‘backlash’ is orchestrated by the patent maximalists. It’s a made up controversy which the practicing industry has repeatedly refuted. Sites like Watchtroll and Patently-O worked very hard to scandalise PTAB and solicit briefs to that effect. So did Morinville, who burned papers in an unauthorised protest in front of the USPTO (like some Tea Party nut).

Managing IP, another key element of the patent microcosm, wrote about it several days ago (stating, in the headline, that this “could blow up the IPR system”):

If successful, Allergan’s eye-catching gambit of seeking to cancel PTAB proceedings by assigning patents to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe would be a blueprint for others to follow. But will the PTAB rule that sovereign immunity applies in this case?

Then came Bristows, the UPC propagandists and the friends of patent trolls (even in Europe), with a headline that says “rip off consumers” [sic] (means customers). These are the mischievous people who openly lobby for patent trolls (even promoting them in the UK) — using words like “attack” to mean quality control (typical calls to weaken PTAB IPRs). It says that “according to this New York Times article, the Mowhawk Tribe’s general counsel, Dale White, said it was a Dallas law firm called Shore Chan DePumpo that first approached the tribe with the proposal.”

This highly dodgy entity was mentioned here before. To quote Bristows:

Critics have said that the move should fail because a company should not be able to shield its patents from review. The response, of course, being that they cannot completely shield their patents from any review – they will still be subject to federal court and the realm of Hatch-Waxman litigation (at least in this case). So the patents are, for now, not completely immune to the attack as stated by Allergan’s press release (although a different deal and parties could take a different position which could make the sovereign immunity v federal court position a bit murkier).

In the meantime, what seems clear is that this move is another flag to Congress that the IPR regime needs to be re-examined. Senator Brown, however, stated that he would look into how Congress can “close loopholes that drug companies exploit to avoid competition”. But perhaps a more holistic view as to all the issues in play is in order…

“The biggest problem with Allergan’s St Regis Mohawk deal is that the tribe may not own the patents,” IAM explained. They just (mis)use it for immunity and herein lies the great controversy. The Mowhawk Tribe’s general counsel, Dale White, got them into a scam. The tribe ought to fire him and ‘burn’ the patents (if at all possible). Any financial gain made through this ridiculous transaction is likely outweighed by the damage done to the tribe’s reputation already. Is this what they want to become synonymous with? Because many people will know nothing about the tribe except this episode.

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. Weaponising Russophobia Against One's Critics

    Response to smears and various whispering campaigns whose sole purpose is to deplete the support base for particular causes and people; these sorts of things have gotten out of control in recent years



  2. When the EPO is Run by Politicians It's Expected to Be Aggressive and Corrupt Like Purely Political Establishments

    António 'Photo Op' Campinos will have marked his one-year anniversary in July; he has failed to demonstrate morality, respect for the law, understanding of the sciences, leadership by example and even the most basic honesty (he lies a lot)



  3. Links 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  4. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  5. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  6. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  7. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  8. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  9. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  10. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  11. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  12. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  13. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  14. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  15. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  16. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  17. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  18. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  19. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  20. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  21. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  22. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  23. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day



  24. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)



  25. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)



  26. Links 9/6/2019: Arrest of Microsoft Peter, Linux 5.2 RC4, Ubuntu Touch Update

    Links for the day



  27. Chapter 8: A Foot in the Door -- How to Train Sympathetic Developers and Infiltrate Other Projects

    How to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects



  28. Chapter 7: Patent War -- Use Low-Quality Patents to Prove That All Software Rips Off Your Company

    Patents in the United States last for 20 years from the time of filing. Prior to 1994, the patent term was 17 years from when the patent was issued.



  29. The Linux Foundation in 2019: Over 100 Million Dollars in Income, But Cannot Maintain Linux.com?

    Today’s Linux Foundation gets about 0.1 billion dollars per year (as explained in our previous post), so why can’t it spend about 0.1% of that money on people who write for and maintain a site that actually promotes GNU/Linux?



  30. Microsoft and Proprietary Software Vendors a Financial Boon for the Linux Foundation, But at What Cost?

    The Linux Foundation is thriving financially, but the sources of income are diversified to the point where the Linux Foundation is actually funded by foes of Linux, defeating the very purpose or direction of such a nonprofit foundation (led by self-serving millionaires who don't use GNU/Linux)


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