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 19/10/2018: OpenBSD 6.4 and OpenSSH 7.9 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Ingve Björn Stjerna Has Just Warned That If Team UPC and the European Patent Office Rigged the Proceedings of the German Constitutional Court, Consequences Would be Significant

    The EPO is back to mentioning the Unified Patent Court and it keeps making it abundantly clear that it is only working for the litigation 'industry' rather than for science and technology (or "innovation" as they like to euphemise it)



  3. Links 18/10/2018: New Ubuntu and Postgres

    Links for the day



  4. It's Almost 2019 and Team UPC is Still Pretending Unitary Patent (UPC) Exists, Merely Waiting for Britain to Join

    Refusing to accept that the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) has reached its death or is at a dead end, UPC proponents — i.e. lawyers looking to profit from frivolous litigation — resort to outright lies and gymnastics in logic/intellectual gymnastics



  5. IAM and IP Kat Are Still Megaphones of Battistelli and His Agenda

    IAM reaffirms its commitment to corrupt Battistelli and IP Kat maintains its stance, which is basically not caring at all about EPO corruption (to the point of actively deleting blog comments that mention such corruption, i.e. 'sanitising' facts)



  6. The EPO Under António Campinos Relaxes the Rules on Software Patenting and the Litigation 'Industry' Loves That

    EPO management, which is nontechnical, found new terms by which to refer to software patents -- terms that even the marketing departments can endorse (having propped them up); they just call it all AI, augmented intelligence and so on



  7. Links 17/10/2018: Elementary OS 5.0 “Juno” Released, MongoDB’s Server Side Public Licence

    Links for the day



  8. Improving US Patent Quality Through Reassessments of Patents and Courts' Transparency

    Transparency in US courts and more public participation in the patent process (examination, litigation etc.) would help demonstrate that many patents are being granted — and sometimes asserted — that are totally bunk, bogus, fake



  9. Ask OIN How It Intends to Deal With Microsoft Proxies Such as Patent Trolls

    OIN continues to miss the key point (or intentionally avoid speaking about it); Microsoft is still selling 'protection' from the very same patent trolls that it is funding, arming, and sometimes even instructing (who to pass patents to and sue)



  10. Links 1610/2018: Linux 4.19 RC8, Xfce Screensaver 0.1.0 Released

    Links for the day



  11. Judge-Bashing Tactics, Undermining PTAB, and Iancu's Warpath for the Litigation and Insurance 'Industries'

    Many inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leverage 35 U.S.C. § 101 against software patents; instead of putting an end to such patents Director Iancu decides to just serve the 'industry' he came from (a meta-industry where his firm had worked for Donald Trump)



  12. 'Cloud', 'AI' and Other Buzzwords as Excuses for Granting Fake Patents on Software

    With resurgence of rather meaningless terms like so-called 'clouds' (servers/hosting) and 'AI' (typically anything in code which does something clever, including management of patents) the debate is being shifted away from 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101); but courts would still see past such façade



  13. Corporate Media's Failure to Cover Patents Properly and Our New Hosting Woes

    A status update about EPO affairs and our Web host's plan to shut down (as a whole) very soon, leaving us orphaned or having to pay heavy bills



  14. Links 15/10/2018: Testing Ubuntu 18.10 Release Candidates, KaOS 2018.10 Released

    Links for the day



  15. USPTO FEES Act/SUCCESS Act Gives More Powers to Director Iancu, Supplying Patents for Litigation 'Business' and Embargo (ITC)

    Corruption of the US patent system contributes to various issues which rely on the extrajudicial nature of some elements in this system; companies can literally have their products confiscated or imports blocked, based on wrongly-granted patents



  16. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Decides That USPTO Wrongly Granted Patents to Roche

    Patent quality issues at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — motivated by money rather than common sense — continue to be highlighted by courts; the USPTO needs to raise the bar to improve the legal certainty associated with US patents



  17. Even Judge Gilstrap From Texas is Starting to Accept That Software Patents Are Invalid

    Amid new lawsuits from Texas (e.g. against Citrix) we’re pleased to see that even “reprehensible” Rodney Gilstrap (that’s what US politicians call him) is learning to accept SCOTUS on 35 U.S.C. § 101



  18. Federal Circuit Doubles Down on User Interface Patents, Helps Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls Curtail the Prime Competitor of Microsoft Office

    Patent trolls that are connected to Microsoft continue to sue Microsoft rivals using old patents; this time, for a change, even the Federal Circuit lets them get away with it



  19. Let's Hope Apple Defeats All the Abstract Patents That Are Leveraged Against It

    Apple can be viewed as a strategic 'ally' against patents that threaten Android/Linux if one ignores all the patent battles the company started (and has since then settled) against Android OEMs



  20. EPO Insider/Märpel Says President Campinos Already Acts Like Battistelli

    Unitary Patent (UPC) is a step towards making the EPO an EU institution like the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO); but it's not making any progress and constitutional judges must realise that Campinos, chosen by Battistelli to succeed him, is just an empty mask



  21. Quality of Patents Granted by the EPO is Still Low and Nobody Will Benefit Except Lawyers, Jubilant Over Growing Lenience on Software Patents

    Deterioration of patent quality at the EPO — a serious problem which examiners themselves are complaining about — is becoming rather evident as new guidelines are very lenient on software patenting



  22. 100 Days Into the Term of Campinos There is Already an EPO Suicide

    A seventh known suicide at the EPO since the so-called 'reforms' began; the EPO continues to pretend that everything is changing for the better, but in reality it's yet more nepotism and despotism



  23. Links 13/10/2018: Ubuntu Touch OTA-5, MidnightBSD 1.0 Ready

    Links for the day



  24. Links 11/10/2018: PostgreSQL 11 RC1 Released, Librem 5 Loves GNOME 3.32

    Links for the day



  25. Friend Brings a Friend, Boss Becomes Subordinate: the EPO Under António Campinos is Starting to Look a Lot Like Team Battistelli 2.0

    The new President of the EPO contributes to the perception that the Office is a rogue institution. Governance is all in reverse at the Office because it still seems like the Office President bosses the Council rather than be bossed by it (as intended, as per the EPC)



  26. UPC Cowardice: Team UPC Uses Cloaks of Anonymity to Discredit Authors of Scholarly UPC Paper They Don't Like

    Team UPC has sunk to the bottom of the barrel; now it uses anonymous letters in an effort to discredit work of Max Planck Institute staff, in the same way (more or less) that ad hominem attacks were attempted against the filer of the constitutional complaint in Germany



  27. New EPO Guidelines: Granting European Patents on Business Methods, Algorithms, Mental Acts and Other Abstract Stuff

    Keeping so-called 'production' high and meeting so-called 'targets' (allegedly set by Battistelli), Campinos relaxes the rules for "computer-implemented inventions" (one among many misleading terms that mean software patents in Europe)



  28. Open Invention Network is a Proponent of Software Patents -- Just Like Microsoft -- and Microsoft Keeps Patents It Uses to Blackmail Linux Vendors

    OIN loves Microsoft; OIN loves software patents as well. So Microsoft's membership in OIN is hardly a surprise and it's not solving the main issue either, as Microsoft can indirectly sue and "Microsoft has not included any patents they might hold on exfat into the patent non-aggression pact," according to Bradley M. Kuhn



  29. Links 10/10/2018: Unreal Engine 4.21 Preview, Red Hat Openshift Container Platform 3.11

    Links for the day



  30. Links 9/10/2018: Plasma 5.14, Flatpak 1.2 Plan

    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