Summary: The latest anti-PTAB posts from Watchtroll (they make up almost most of the 'articles' so far this year) and what can be deduced from Wi-Fi One v Broadcom -- a new decision from a high court
THE EPO's management is a premier source of lies, but it's closely matched by Gene Quinn's Watchtroll. Google News is syndicating far too much trash, or so-called 'news' sites that are actually marketing and lobbying. Watchtroll is one of those sites. It can almost give one a headache trying to figure out how Watchtroll comes up with its misleading spin and deceptive headlines. Google, in turn, relays that to a broader audience.
The latest PTAB bashing at Watchtroll (they do this every day now) is
beyond moronic. "Professional writers" who do such lobbying disregard fact-checking. What on Earth is
this (by Steve Brachmann and Gene Quinn)? It's an
incredibly misleading headline; it says "58 Patents Upheld in District Court Invalidated by PTAB on Same Grounds," but it's not on same grounds at all, just different interpretation of same Sections (e.g. 102 and 103).
Then, later in the day, Gene Quinn, Steve Brachmann, Josh Malone and Paul Morinville (
the patent 'extremist' who dons a cowboy hat) came up with
"PTAB Facts: An ugly picture of an tribunal run amok".
"Facts"...
Yeah, just keep using that word. "Facts"...
Donald Trump too claims to be tweeting "facts", even if in less than a year he has already been caught telling about 2,000 lies or misleading statements (some people track them all and keep count).
The patent microcosm and its deceitful lobby (sites like Watchtroll) are clearly losing the debate online; laws are turning against them, courts rule against their interests. So lying seems to have become the last resort. Sorry, not "lying"... but "facts"...
Alternative "facts"...
That's the role of Watchtroll. Here is
what the site wrote about the latest decision from the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). It matched his anti-PTAB agenda, so he and other patent extremists amplified it as much as possible. One such person
said: "WiFi One; en banc. Finally after all these months! Held: in inter partes review, PTAB time-bar determinations under ۤ 315(b) are appealable." Prior decisions to the contrary overruled. Remand to panel."
Another one
said: "IMPORTANT en banc #patent case: Wi-Fi One v Broadcom, Federal Circuit en banc 1/8/18: 9-4 vote that sec 315 time bar issues in IPRs *ARE* appealable to FedCir; overruling contrary conclusion of Achates Pub. (2015).
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1944.Opinion.1-4-2018.1.PDF …"
Michael Loney, writing about
Wi-Fi One v Broadcom having closely tracked PTAB for years,
said this:
In Wi-Fi One v Broadcom, the Federal Circuit has held the time-bar determinations for instituting IPR at the PTAB are appealable. Observers believe this may foreshadow similar decisions for other areas of reviewability
"Observers" in this case means the patent microcosm and "believe" means "hope". Of course they would cherry-pick all the decisions which suit them, even if these decisions may
not be precedential. That's just how lobbying works.
⬆
