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

01.14.18

PTAB is Being Demeaned, But Only by the Very Entities One Ought to Expect (Because They Hate Patent Justice/Quality)

Posted in America, Apple, Patents at 5:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘natural enemies’ of a high-quality patent system keep weeping

Sad boy

Summary: The latest rants/scorn against PTAB — leaning on cases such as Wi-Fi One v Broadcom or entities like Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, Apple etc. — are all coming from firms and people who profit from low-quality patents

THE excellent work of the patent appeal board in the US (at the USPTO it’s referred to as PTAB, similar but not analogous to BoA at the EPO) has attracted the wrath of patent maximalists. They cannot tolerate the concept of quality control or reassessment of patents they (or more typically their clients) were granted in the past. This is expected. The harder they resist, the more they’ve been hurt. And the goal ought to be decimating their role in this system because they tend to contribute nothing but feuds and FUD.

How about this from Adam Mossoff? His attacks on PTAB are a good sign because he is notorious for promoting everything that’s wrong in the patent system. He’s just working for a Conservative think tank serving patent trolls and the litigation ‘industry’. As this tweet put it, Mossoff says that the “@uspto’s #patent review board is denying basic rights to American innovators.”

What basic rights? Patents? They’re not rights. Drop this myth. They typically try to call patents “property” (which they're not) and then allude to “property rights” or whatever. Intellectually-dishonest garbage that Koch-funded ‘academics’ would say…

Let’s see who else it’s moaning about PTAB because that’s just pretty revealing. One site of the patent microcosm complained about PTAB’s inter partes reviews (IPRs) a few days ago. “Like many inter partes reviews,” it said, a “dispute started in district court. Multiple IPRs from the defendants followed: this petition against claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,155,298, from Bright House Networks, WideOpen West Finance, Knology of Florida, and Birch Communications; another by the same parties against claim 20; a third by YMax against claims 1 and 20; and two more against related patents.”

And guess what happened. It’s gone! Good riddance. At low cost. This is what makes PTAB so important.

By contrast, IP Watch‘s Steven Seidenberg wrote about Oil States (a case about IPRs, indirectly affecting the Kochs). “The upcoming decision in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group could have major ramifications for patents, copyrights, trademarks, and the USPTO,” he said. This is the main reason for lobbying from the likes of IAM and Watchtroll. They hope to change the outcome to stop or slow down PTAB. They want not only to weaken PTAB but to obliterate it. Earlier today Watchtroll wrote: “The Supreme Court had a lot to chew on last year, in part because so many issues were percolating at the Federal Circuit. In addition, the Supreme Court tends to reach consensus (or something closer to consensus) in patent cases, making them great issues for the court to consider when it sat with a vacancy last year. But based on our look at what’s sitting before the Federal Circuit now, there simply aren’t as many “big picture” issues warranting high court attention. And so, despite the high reversal rate, we doubt that the Supreme Court will show too strong an interest in taking patent cases for the following term.”

And then starts the PTAB bashing, which has become a daily routine at Watchtroll. One does not even need to look far back. Here’s Watchtroll’s attack on PTAB from 4 days ago, 3 days ago, and another one earlier today (second in a day and it’s a Sunday!) — already cited by some of the most extreme people (those who support trolls). Obviously, Watchtroll will attack PTAB again almost every day this month; Patently-O too used to do that for a while. Why? Because to these people, who make money from patent disputes, patent quality is the enemy.

One of the latest strategies for discrediting PTAB is latching onto the Native American tribes or even Apple. Some extremists keep linking to Law.com, which published two pieces about it before the weekend [1, 2]. It looks like Apple bashes a PTAB panel when the outcome does not suit Apple, so cherry-pickers now use that as ‘proof’ that PTAB must be corrupt. Law.com said: “Apple claims that its opponent contacted senior administration officials and the judges presiding over the case, swaying the outcome of an inter partes review proceeding.”

Would a site of the patent microcosm add an attack on PTAB? Of course it would. They all do. “IPRs Are the Best—Except When They’re Biased, Prejudiced and Violate Due Process,” says a sensationalist headline. The EFF’s Vera Ranieri responded by saying: “What’s clear from this PTAB story and the one with the Tribe is that the PTAB needs clearer rules and more transparency as to how it operates. Conspiracies will breed where facts are kept hidden.”

She was alluding to another case that is mentioned spuriously and that we already covered last weekend. IAM keeps kicking this dead horse by writing about it:

The company, which bills itself as a “global leader in cost-efficient technology that enables high-volume text, voice and digital multi-media communications”, has accused Apple of infringing its IP in a district court action and has demanded $2.8 billion in damages. It has been on a remarkable run at the PTAB as it has looked to defend its rights, fighting off eight reviews brought not only by Apple, but also the likes of Unified Patents and AT&T. According to Lex Machina, of the eight IPRs that have been filed against Voip-Pal’s patents, six were denied institution while two (including the one in question here) had all of their claims upheld following institution.

That’s a record which suggests that the company has some very good quality grants; but the latest motion from the Cupertino-based tech giant shows the degree to which it, arguably more than any other defendant, is prepared to fight its corner in infringement disputes.

Citing Watchtroll, as usual, other defenders of patent trolls try to scandalise PTAB (using Voip-Pal for instance). Their ultimate goal it to lower patent quality, help trolls, and enrich themselves. Such patent zealots would still (never mind the tribe) come up with conspiracy theories (from which the tribes feed), so there’s a cyclic flow here or a loop. Sites like Watchtroll accuse PTAB of corruption, tribe lawyers then repeat that, and in turn sites like Watchtroll repeat what the lawyers say.

Regarding these lawyers, Michael Loney wrote about it in short form a few days ago. The St. Regis Mohawk Tribe has become a laughing stock for participating in a patent scam — a scam which is still being defended by the patent microcosm. Here’s one new example:

As previously reported, the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe filed a request for oral hearing that included a “request for discovery into the identity and impartiality of the merits panel assigned to this case.” The paper was replete with justifications for its request and specific discovery it was seeking, all premised on its apprehension that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) might deprive the Tribe of due process by, inter alia, empaneling an expanded panel of Board members (including specifically Chief Administrative Patent Judge David Ruschke) that would not be impartial in deciding whether the Tribe’s sovereign immunity precluded the Board from deciding on the validity of the patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,629,111; 8,633,162; 8,642,556; 8,648,048; 8,685,930; and 9,248,191) involved in the consolidated IPRs.

They just want to be exempted from the law and let a private company ‘borrow’ this immunity in exchange for money. How is that not a scam?

The scam is not PTAB but those who try hard to destroy or avoid it.

Saurabh Vishnubhakat recently wrote about Wi-Fi One v Broadcom (a case which concerns PTAB). This too mentioned another form of immunity: “The decision in Wi-Fi One v. Broadcom is the first real test, following Cuozzo, of the broad view that the Patent Office has taken of its immunity from judicial review in PTAB institutions. Going forward, it will likely be the dialogue between the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court that defines the full contours of the agency’s discretion.”

Well, the Supreme Court will rule on IPRs within several months. No doubt the outcome can be swayed by online dialog and sites of private companies like this one will meddle as much as they can. Here they are saying that “Patent Office employees are creatures of incentives.”

Well, calling them creatures and all that shows how parent microcosm views them. Here’s the portion with its entire context:

Patent Office employees are creatures of incentives. It is well-known that patent examiners earn various counts for use in the USPTO’s internal quota system. PTAB judges are also measured by a count-based system, which is based on the number of decisions they author. It is no secret that Examiners and PTAB judges at times get creative with policies and practices to most easily meet their quotas. Here, we look at a recent decision that shows a practice of PTAB judges deciding only one ground of rejection without looking to the remaining pending ground on appeal.

USPTO examiners are incentivised to grant as much as possible, so what’s wrong with PTAB working in an opposite fashion to balance or negate that? For the patent microcosm, for obvious reasons, it’s only granting — not rejections — that brings a lot of money. If the goal of the US patent system is just to blindly grant as many patents as possible, then PTAB is harmful; but if the US patent system seriously strives for quality and justice, then PTAB isn’t just desirable but essential.

It’s not hard to see why PTAB faces resistance. The question is, who from?

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 16/8/2018: MAAS 2.4.1, Mesa 18.2 RC3

    Links for the day



  2. USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO

    The US patent office proposes charging/imposing on applicants that are not customers of Microsoft a penalty; there’s also an overtly and blatantly malicious move whose purpose is to discourage petitions against wrongly-granted (by the USPTO) patents



  3. The Demise of US Software Patents Continues at the Federal Circuit

    Software patents are rotting away in the United States; it remains to be seen when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will truly/fully honour 35 U.S.C. § 101 and stop granting such patents



  4. Almost Two Months After the ILO Ruling Staff Representative Brumme is Finally Back on the Job at EPO

    Ion Brumme gets his position at the EPO back, owing to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO-AT) ruling back in July; things, however, aren't rosy for the Office as a whole



  5. Links 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  6. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  7. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  8. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  9. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  10. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  11. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  12. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  13. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  14. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  15. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  16. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  17. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  18. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  19. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  20. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  21. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  22. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  23. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  24. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  25. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  26. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  27. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  28. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  29. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  30. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day


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