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

09.24.17

Fake News About Software Patents in the United States

Posted in America, Patents at 7:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Science fiction does not just predict the future but rather inspires it. Similarly, in patent lobbying, making ridiculous claims can change the outcome to the effect the lobbyists want (UPC, Alice and so on)

Fake news about Alice

Summary: Spinning and twisting the facts (for so-called ‘alternative facts’), the patent microcosm is trying to give the impression that software patents are still fine in the US

THE previous post reminded readers that the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), together with IBM, is trying to undermine Alice. They mislead the world. It’s a lobbying and PR campaign. IBM’s longtime asset, David Kappos (former USPTO Director), plays a role in that. But what role does crooked media play in the attempts to water down or suppress Alice? Actually, as we have been showing for years, such media is occupied or dominated by the patent microcosm.

“It’s a classic reversal of narratives, where the attacker is the “defender” and the attacked (defender) is the “aggressor”.”Yesterday, Matthew Bultman was at it again, spinning against Alice, as usual. He is habitually cherry-picking and using misleading language to make it seem as though the patent microcosm is right and still has might. He writes for Law 360, a news site which many people would wrongly assume to be objective. Hidden behind paywalls is this latest article of his, with the word “Surviving” in the headline (sometimes he puts “Attack” in his headlines). To Bultman, the one being sued “attacks” and the troll “survives”. It’s a classic reversal of narratives, where the attacker is the “defender” and the attacked (defender) is the “aggressor”. It’s appalling. Foreign policy officials often use similar linguistic tricks.

Here is the opening paragraph from Bultman:

Federal courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice decision by invalidating scores of computer and software patents. But district courts are more often upholding patents in these types of challenges, new data shows, with a surprising twist coming out of the Eastern District of Texas.

Well, that assertion does not match the headline. At all. Back in summer we said that we had not seen (for a very long time) the Federal Circuit ruling in favour of any software patents. Nothing has changed since. I have been watching these things closely for about a decade and I call Bultman’s article — especially the headline — “fake news”.

“I have been watching these things closely for about a decade and I call Bultman’s article — especially the headline — “fake news”.”What do others say? Well, judging by the past week’s news, concerns about the death of software patents are widely expressed. Their demise is generally acknowledged by both sides. There is a “chilling effect on many non-practicing entities [trolls], which often assert ‘business method’ and software patents,” one site wrote some days ago in preparation for the “Patent disputes” roundtable (an echo chamber of patent maximalists). They are worried about the demise of software patents — a fact they cannot deny even publicly.

“Speaking at IPO meeting,” IAM said the other day, “acting USPTO director Matal predicts Congressional action on [Section] 101 reform amid concern over medical diagnostics.”

“Remember that Matal played a role in putting AIA in place.”Section 101 is fine as it is regarding abstract patents like software patents. As for medical diagnostics? That’s another domain…

Remember that Matal played a role in putting AIA in place. It paved the way to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). Matal is not perfect, but Iancu would probably be a lot worse.

Earlier on Professor Jason Rantanen wrote about a “second part of the Mayo/Alice inquiry” (basis for Section 101). To quote Patently-O:

The idea that courts describe patent claims in words other than those of the claims themselves during patent eligible subject matter inquiries is nothing new–to the contrary, it’s a frequent complaint about the Supreme Court’s patent eligible subject matter cases. Usually, it’s referred to as determining what the claims are “directed to,” or, in the second part of the Mayo/Alice inquiry, the search for an “inventive concept.”

As we shall show later today, Patently-O is still trying to undermine PTAB, which basically applies criteria like those in Section 101 in order to thwart software patents. It has already been said that it’s harder to enforce software patents in the US than in Europe (owing to EPO being rather defunct under Battistelli). Isn’t it incredible? The US went towards the light and Europe entered darkness. Patent profiteers look at it the other way around. Here is Bastian Best, for example, stating: “Kickstart your day with a good read!⚡️How to get your software patent allowed in Europe” (well, that’s a very bad way to start the day when you actually develop software).

Also just found via Bastian Best was this new article about a NON-CAFC case (United States District Court in Delaware). To quote:

The Federal District Court in Delaware recently denied a motion to dismiss a patent infringement case involving a video game networking technology patent based on the patent allegedly being invalid for lack of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Despite all of the recent press regarding the so-called Alice test, which revised the test for patent-eligible subject matter, video game related patents are still obtainable and enforceable. It is critical that patent applications for these inventions be carefully considered, the patent applications be properly drafted and the claims be presented in a way that complies with the relevant test.

Guess what would happen if it was to reach CAFC…

“As we shall show later today, Patently-O is still trying to undermine PTAB, which basically applies criteria like those in Section 101 in order to thwart software patents.”The usual.

There is another new article about Alice, this time by Mark Nowotarski (who wrote to tell me that his article does not represent the stance of Fenwick & West). This third article in the “Surviving Alice” series still uses the word “survive” to reinforce the notion that quality control (PTAB) is death/killer, merely to be “survived”. What does the article show? Here is a portion:

Figure 1 shows how the PTAB ex parte appeals judges[8] have responded to Alice in the field of business methods. The blue curve shows the PTAB reversals as a percent of all decisions in the business method work groups from the first quarter of 2013 (before Alice) to the second quarter of 2017. There are typically 100 to 250 decisions in each quarter. These are “full reversals” in the sense that all rejections by the examiner including § 101, § 102, § 103, §112, etc. were overturned by the board. Some of these full reversals have new grounds of rejection introduced by the board[9]. The black curve shows the reversals where the board introduced a new ground of rejection under § 101. The new grounds were typically based on the claims for failing the Alice/Mayo test. Finally, the brown curve shows the reversals in which the PTAB did not make a new § 101 rejection, but nonetheless put in a footnote suggesting that the examiner review the claims under Alice.[10] Alice footnotes[11] started immediately after the Alice decision and abruptly ended in the fourth quarter of 2016.

Figure 1 also shows how examiners in the business method work groups responded to the reversals by the board. The green curve shows the reversals that the examiners subsequently allowed. The red curve shows the reversals that the examiners subsequently rejected with a new ground of rejection under § 101. Examiners can reject claims again after a reversal by the board but only with the approval of their art unit director[12]. This is normally a rare event, but it became standard practice in the business method work groups after Alice.

So here we have some measurable figures; we’ll focus on PTAB in our next post though. Focusing instead on Alice itself, see “‘Alice’ Before ‘Alice’”, “[t]he story of how the USPTO first began systematically denying patentability to software inventions long before Alice v. CLS Bank International.”

“Their overall message is, don’t bother with software patents.”It’s a “[w]ebinar on how to get software patents despite Alice,” Benjamin Henrion explained. So over time they try to devise new tricks to get past the restrictions and still they are failing to win cases. CAFC is about as convinced/impressed by software patents as the Supreme Court was, i.e. not at all.

Writing from Canada, Gowling WLG’s Georgi Paskalev and Benoit Yelle said about a week ago that “pure software algorithms might prove difficult to protect using patents.”

They reposted this days later in another site of the patent microcosm.

Their overall message is, don’t bother with software patents. Or “pure” software patents — whatever that actually means (software is just software). As we have been arguing and showing (with detailed evidence) for years, software patents are worth neither the money nor the effort. Unless the lobby of IBM can pull something off (i.e. changing the law), none of this reality will change any time soon.

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. Some US Patents' Quality is So Low That There's a Garden Clearance/Fire Sale

    Rather than shoot worthless patents into orbit where they belong the Allied Security Trust (AST), collector of dubious patents, will try to sell them to gullible opportunists and patent trolls (even if the said patents would likely perish in courts)



  2. When Amplifying the Message of 'Global Innovation Index 2018' IP Watch Sounds Like WIPO and IP Watchdog (Watchtroll)

    In addition to senatorial efforts and misleading debates about patents, we now contend with something called “Global Innovation Index 2018," whose purpose appears to be similar to the debunked Chamber of Commerce's rankings (quantifying everything in terms of patents)



  3. Erosion of Patent Justice in Europe With Kangaroo Courts and Low-Quality European Patents

    The problematic combination of plaintiff-friendly courts (favouring the accuser, just like in Eastern Texas) and low-quality patents that should never have been granted



  4. Mafia Tactics in Team UPC and Battistelli's Circle

    Mafia-like behaviour at the EPO and the team responsible for the Unified Patent Court (UPC); appointments of loyal friends and family members have become common (nepotism and exchange of favours), as have threats made towards critics, authorities, and the press



  5. Australia Says No to Software Patents

    Rokt is now fighting the Australian patent office over its decision to reject software patents; Shelston IP, an Australian patent law firm (originally from Melbourne), already meddles a great deal in such policies/decisions, hoping to overturn them



  6. Links 19/7/2018: Krita 4.1.1, Qt Creator 4.7.0, and Microsoft-Led Lobby Against Android in EU

    Links for the day



  7. IAM is Pushing SEPs/FRAND Agenda for Patent Trolls and Monopolists That Fund IAM

    The front group of patent trolls, IAM, sets up an echo chamber-type event, preceded by all the usual pro-FRAND propaganda



  8. “Trade Secrets” Litigation Rising in the Wake of TC Heartland, Alice, Oil States and Other Patent-Minimising Decisions

    Litigation strategies are evolving in the wake of top-level decisions that rule out software patents, restrict venue shifting, and facilitate invalidation of patents even outside the courtroom



  9. The EPO -- Like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent System -- is an Untenable Mess

    The António Campinos-led EPO, nearly three weeks under his leadership, still fails to commit to justice (court rulings not obeyed), undo union-busting efforts and assure independence of judges; this, among other factors, is why the Office/Organisation and the UPC it wants to manage appear more or less doomed



  10. Links 18/7/2018: System76's Manufacturing Facility, Microsoft-Led Lobby for Antitrust Against Android

    Links for the day



  11. What Patent Lawyers Aren't Saying: Most Patent Litigation Has Become Too Risky to be Worth It

    The lawyers' key to the castle is lost or misplaced; they can't quite find/obtain leverage in courts, but they don't want their clients to know that



  12. Software Patents Royalty (Tax) Campaign by IBM, a Serial Patent Bully, and the EPO's Participation in All This

    The agenda of US-based patent maximalists, including patent trolls and notorious bullies from the United States, is still being served by the 'European' Patent Office, which has already outsourced some of its work (e.g. translations, PR, surveillance) to the US



  13. The European Council Needs to Check Battistelli's Back Room Deals/Back Door/Backchannel With Respect to Christian Archambeau

    Worries persist that Archambeau is about to become an unworthy beneficiary (nepotism) after a Battistelli setup that put Campinos in power, supported by the Belgian delegation which is connected to Archambeau, a national/citizen of Belgium



  14. PTAB and § 101 (Section 101) Have Locked the Patent Parasites Out of the Patent System

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) have contributed a great deal to patent quality and have reduced the number of frivolous patent lawsuits; this means that firms which profit from patent applications and litigation hate it with a passion and still lobby to weaken if not scuttle PTAB



  15. Patents on Computer Software and Plants in the United States Indicative of Systemic Error

    The never-ending expansion of patent scope has meant that patent law firms generally got their way at the patent office; can the courts react fast enough (before confidence in patents and/or public support for patents is altogether shattered)?



  16. Yesterday's Misleading News From Team UPC and Its Aspiring Management of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) enthusiasts — i.e. those looking to financially gain from it — continue to wrestle with logic, manipulate words and misrepresent the law; yesterday we saw many law firms trying to make it sound as though the UPC is coming to the UK even though this isn’t possible and UPC as a whole is likely already dead



  17. Time for the European Commission to Investigate EPO Corruption Because It May be Partly or Indirectly Connected to EU-IPO, an EU Agency

    The passage of the top role at the EU-IPO from António Campinos to Christian Archambeau would damage confidence in the moral integrity of the European Council; back room deals are alleged to have occurred, implicating corrupt Battistelli



  18. Links 17/7/2018: Catfish 1.4.6 Released, ReactOS 0.4.9, Red Hat's GPL Compliance Group Grows

    Links for the day



  19. Links 16/7/2018: Linux 4.18 RC5, Latte Dock v0.8, Windows Back Doors Resurface

    Links for the day



  20. Alliance for US Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) Misleads the US Government, Pretending to Speak for Startups While Spreading Lies for the Patent Microcosm

    In the United States, which nowadays strives to raise the patent bar, the House Small Business Committee heard from technology firms but it also heard from some questionable front groups which claim to support "startups" and "jobs" (but in reality support just patents on the face of it)



  21. 'Blockchain', 'Cloud' and Whatever Else Gets Exploited to Work Around 35 U.S.C. § 101 (or the EPC) and Patent Algorithms/Software

    Looking for a quick buck or some low-quality patents (which courts would almost certainly reject), opportunists carry on with their gold rush, aided by buzzwords and hype over pretty meaningless things



  22. PTAB Defended by the EFF, the R Street Institute and CCIA as the Number of Petitions (IPRs) Continues to Grow

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) come to the rescue when patently-bogus patents are used, covering totally abstract concepts (like software patents do); IPRs continue to increase in number and opponents of PTAB, who conveniently cherry-pick Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, can't quite stop that



  23. IAM/Joff Wild May Have Become a de Facto Media Partner of the Patent Troll iPEL

    Invitation to trolls in China, courtesy of the patent trolls' lobby called "IAM"; this shows no signs of stopping and has become rather blatant



  24. Cautionary Tale: ILO Administrative Tribunal Cases (Appeals) 'Intercepted' Under António Campinos

    The ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT) is advertised by the EPO's management as access to justice, but it's still being undermined quite severely to the detriment of aggrieved staff



  25. Asking the USPTO to Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 101 is Like Asking Pentagon Officials to Pursue Real, Persistent Peace

    Some profit from selling weapons, whereas others profit from patent grants and litigation; what's really needed right now is patent sanity and adherence to the public interest as well as the law itself, e.g. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions



  26. BT and Sonos Are Still Patent Bullies, Seeing Patents as a Backup Plan

    The companies seeking to complement their business (or make up for their demise) using patents are still suing rivals while calling that litigation "research and development" (the same old euphemism)



  27. Jim Skippen, a Longtime Patent Troll, Admits That the Trolling Sector is Collapsing

    Canada's biggest patent troll (WiLAN) bar BlackBerry doesn't seem to be doing too well as its CEO leaves the domain altogether



  28. From East Asia to the Eastern District of Texas: XYZ Printing, Maxell, and X2Y Attenuators

    The patent aggression, which relies on improper litigation venues, harms innocent parties a great deal; only their lawyers benefit from all this mess



  29. Links 14/7/2018: Mesa 18.1.4, Elisa 0.2.1, More on Python's Guido van Rossum

    Links for the day



  30. Number of Oppositions to Grants/Awards of European Patents at the EPO Has Skyrocketed, Based on Internal Data

    The number of challenged patents continues to soar and staff of the EPO (examiners already over-encumbered by far too much work, due to unrealistic targets) would struggle to cope or simply be compelled to not properly deal with oppositions


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