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

01.15.18

The US Supreme Court Has Just Denied Another Chance to Deal With a Case Similar to Alice (Potentially Impacting § 101)

Posted in America, Courtroom, Deception, Patents at 3:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

§ 101 will carry on invaliding abstract patents

Section

Summary: There is no sign that software patents will be rendered worthwhile any time in the near future, but proponents of software patents don’t give up

THE departure from software patenting (more so post-Alice) isn’t to be taken for granted. It needs to be guarded. There are many attempts to undermine Alice, e.g. overriding the decision with another (more recent one), changing Section 101 (§ 101), and passing new laws in Congress. The USPTO probably couldn’t care any less because it profits from patents (academics say it explains low patent quality), but at the same time it needs to respect the law, especially the Supreme Court.

Do not expect the Supreme Court to override (or ‘overturn’ so to speak) Alice any time soon. As a matter of fact, a case which a patent maximalist claims to an “Alice 101 case” will remain buried as far as the Justices are concerned.

“As a matter of fact, a case which a patent maximalist claims to an “Alice 101 case” will remain buried as far as the Justices are concerned.”“Yesterday,” the maximalist wrote, “the Supreme Court Denied Cert. in RecogniCorp v Nintendo—an Alice 101 case.” He also said that “the Supreme Court Denied Cert. in the UMass Gene Case—an Eleventh Amendment State Immunity Case.” He then added that “the Supreme Court Denied Cert in the Smartflash v Apple case, where &533M verdict was reversed.” And finally: “The S.Ct. granted cert. today in Western Ge. co LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp., case number 16-1011. This is a damages case.” Patently-O cared enough about that last one to write a blog post about it. “The Supreme Court has granted writ of certiorari in the international-patent-damages case WesternGeco LLC (Schlumberger) v. ION Geophysical Corp., Docket No. 16-1011,” it said. This has zero relevance to Alice. It’s here to stay and that’s just fine.

This very long new article from Josh Landau explains that it’s not the ‘disaster’ or the ‘avalanche’ the patent microcosm tries to call it. Here are some numbers to put things in perspective:

This search shows that, from Bilski’s opinion through mid-July 2017, there have been a total of 22,047 patent applications which have ultimately been abandoned after receiving a § 101 rejection under any of Bilski, Alice, Mayo, or Myriad. (For comparison, the USPTO issues approximately 300,000 patents every year.)

This doesn’t mean that these applications were abandoned because of the § 101 rejection—for example, a number were abandoned even though they were allowed because the applicant failed to pay the issue fee. It doesn’t even mean that the § 101 rejection wasn’t overcome—in some cases, the § 101 rejection is overcome and rejections over prior art lead to abandonment. All it means is that at some point a § 101 rejection was received, and the application was ultimately abandoned.

Still, this is the highest possible number of applications that could even arguably be considered to be abandoned for a reason that is in some way related to a § 101 rejection.

Let’s take a look at the opposite question—how many patent applicants overcome a § 101 rejection?

In an effort to ‘scandalise’ § 101 the lobbying ‘media’ keeps on going. The patent microcosm, as one ought to expect, is all over this. It refuses to let go and this article from 3 days ago said: “Patents protect inventions that are new, useful and nonobvious. The three main categories of patents are utility patents, design patents, and business method/software patents.”

“In an effort to ‘scandalise’ § 101 the lobbying ‘media’ keeps on going.”But what kind of law firm would honestly promote business method/software patents in 2018?

Here’s another new example, this one titled “Patent Eligibility and Obviousness in a Covered Business Method Patent Review” (also from the patent microcosm). “The limits of patent eligibility continue to be a major hurtle,” it says, but for who? For those who pursue litigation, not creation. But that’s not how the law firm puts it. To quote:

The limits of patent eligibility continue to be a major hurtle for patent owners whose patents are subject to Covered Business Method Patent Review (CBM) at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In IBG LLC v. Trading Tech. Int. Inc., Case CMB2016-00090 (PTAB December 7, 2017) the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision holding that US Patent 7,725,382 was not directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. In addition to the §101 holding, the PTAB held that the Petitioner failed to meet their burden to show that the ‘382 Patent was obvious over certain prior art under 35 U.S.C. §103.

These are the usual rants about § 101, PTAB and so on. It has gotten rather tiring. The same site is absolutely paranoid over Alice/Mayo (§ 101). See the last paragraph here:

The answer to the question posed by the title is no, the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., No. 2016-2442 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8 2017) notwithstanding (reported on by this blog in “Attorney Fees Awarded for Post-Alice Patent Litigation”). Two recent district court patent cases in which the validity under 35 USC §101 of the asserted patents was in question yielded different results on the award of attorney fees under 35 USC § 285 (Opal Run LLC, Plaintiff v. C & A Marketing, Inc., Defendant, No. 2:16-CV-00024-JRG-RSP (Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division) (November 29, 2017) (“Opal Run v. C&A”) and Product Association Technologies v. Clique Media Group, No. CV 17-5463-GW (PJWx), (Central District of California) (November 30, 2017) (“PAT v. Clique Media”)). Both cases slightly predate the Federal Circuit’s Inventor Holdings decision.

[...]

Lessons for Practice

Think twice before asserting claims that may be vulnerable to a §101 challenge.

Prior to asserting a claim that may be vulnerable to a §101 challenge, decide if saving the claim from a §101 review is worth the risk of paying attorney fees.

When seeking attorney’s fees for a defendant, dig as deep as possible to find evidence of the plaintiff’s motives in asserting the infringement claims.

They just try hard to bypass § 101 in order to dodge challenges, seeing perhaps press releases like this new one which speaks of “patents [on] understanding personality” (using algorithms).

“…not every time § 101 gets brought up it’s instantaneously applicable.”These are clearly software patents. They just avoid this term.

The same site posted another such rant a few some days ago (regarding Alice) and this time it was looking to exploit Finjan (a troll case which we covered the other day and Watchtroll belatedly mentioned on Sunday). They’re latching onto this case for Alice-bashing purposes, even though there’s no basis for it, as we explained some days ago. To quote:

Broad patent claims directed to computer virus screening have survived an Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 patent-eligibility challenge at the Federal Circuit. Finjan, Inc., v. Blue Coat Systems Inc., No. 2016-2520 (January 10, 2018) (precedential). As reported here, the District Court had denied a post-trial motion seeking to set aside a finding of infringement on the grounds that claims of the ’844 patent were patent-ineligible. Addressing patent-eligibility along with other issues (not addressed in this post) related to several patents in suit, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844, entitled “System and method for attaching a downloadable security profile to a downloadable,” are not directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea.

As we said before, not every time § 101 gets brought up it’s instantaneously applicable. The very fact that it’s not a catch-all defense actually lends legitimacy to § 101. But don’t expect sites like Watchtroll to acknowledge that. They’re lobbying and selling their services, that’s all. A couple of days ago the founder posted his marketing spam (selling the ‘industry’ which rips inventors off). In his own words: “For competent, thorough US patent searches alone you would pay at least $400 for something that is relatively simple and up to $800 to $1,000 for a search alone on something complex, or deals with software. This cost is for the professional patent search alone, and does not include the cost of an attorney to review the search and offer an opinion about patentability.”

The bottom like is, who pays? The other day fee deference was brought up after the “the district court dismissed the case on summary judgment after finding the claims barred under 35 U.S.C. § 102.”

“Watchtroll also runs sponsored press releases.”Whoever pays does not matter much to the law firms; it’s always them who eventually net that money.

Watchtroll also runs sponsored press releases. Truth does not seem to matter to these people and authors in TechDirt generally regard that site to be lacking integrity (they told me so). Watchtroll now boils down to § 101 lobbying, PTAB bashing and sometimes even CAFC bashing (Robert Schaffer and Joseph Robinson wrote two articles to that effect on Friday [1, 2]). From the latest PTAB rant of theirs: “The Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of several claims in a patent owned by Monsanto. The patent is directed to a two-step process for crossing two parent soybean lines to produce soybean seeds with a modified fatty acid profile. The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection, during inter partes reexamination, that the claims are anticipated by, or obvious over, a prior art patent to Booth.”

Monsanto has long used patents to bully just about everyone. Its patents are, unsurprisingly, some of the most notorious out there as they claim ‘ownership’ of particular bits of nature. These are ethical issues. Bilski, Alice, Mayo, and Myriad are very much necessary.

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. OSI Did Not Guard the Open Source Brand; Now Its Own Name, Open Source Initiative, is Being 'Diluted' and “Open Source” is Almost Meaningless

    The term or the brand “Open Source” is becoming worthless because those who use it typically engage in production of proprietary software falsely marketed as “Open Source” (that's what openwashing is inherently about)



  2. Microsoft is Not an Open Source Authority But an Opponent of Open Source

    Various outlets that are closely connected to Microsoft are trying to convince us that Microsoft is now 'king' of Open Source; nothing could be further from the truth however



  3. Links 22/9/2019: KMyMoney 5.0.7, Lennart's Latest Plan

    Links for the day



  4. Summits of Open Bear Traps: The Open Core Summit and Other 'Open' Events That Actually Attack Software Freedom

    Conferences that call themselves "open" something are sometimes nothing but an attack on openness (not to mention freedom) and promotion of FUD about Free/Open Source software (FOSS); there's an ample set of examples to that effect



  5. Openwashing Report: 'Open Source' Without Any or Most of the Benefits

    The cheapening of the term "Open Source" continues; sooner or later everything out there will be called "open" irrespective of what it really is



  6. Patent Extremism is Not Normal and Not an Innocent Mindset

    Reflection upon the sad state of the European patent system and how media turns a blind eye to it; worldwide, in general, the discussion about patents is being warped by the litigation giants, whose sole goal is to maximise the number of lawsuits/shakedowns (personal gain)



  7. Links 22/9/2019: LLVM 9.0.0 and FreeBSD 12.1 Beta

    Links for the day



  8. Links 21/9/2019: Plasma 5.17 Beta in Kubuntu, Cockpit 203

    Links for the day



  9. IBM Cannot Become a True Friend of Free Software Because of Its Current Patent Policy

    IBM needs to quit bullying people/companies with software patents; that would help towards appeasement of IBM critics and sceptics



  10. When Patent 'Professionals' Sound Like Children Who Learned to Parrot Some Intentionally-Misleading Buzzwords, Myths and Lies

    With buzzwords like "AI" and misleading terms like "IP" the litigation zealots are trying to convince themselves (and the public) that software is a physical thing and a "property" which needs "protecting" from "theft"; it doesn't seem to bother these people that copyright law already covers software



  11. The European Parliament Needs to Become More Outspoken About EPO Abuses

    There are few encouraging signs in Europe right now because the EPO's disregard for patent law (striving to just grant as many patents as possible) earned it much-needed backlash from the European Parliament



  12. Links 19/9/2019: German Federal Ministry of the Interior Wants FOSS, Top Snaps Named

    Links for the day



  13. Buying the Voices of 'Linux' People to Repeat Microsoft's Talking Points While Removing Our Icons and Leaders (Calling Them Sexist)

    The dirty games leveraged by several companies including Microsoft target charismatic people who are essential for morale and leadership; these tactics aren't particularly novel



  14. When the EPO Sees Itself as Above European Law, Grants Patents in Defiance of the EPC (Its Founding Document) and Violates Staff's Labour Rights/Protections (International Law)

    The absurd state of affairs at the EPO has reached the point where laws at every level are being violated and even judges are being threatened or vainly ignored; the EU is belatedly trying to tackle these issues, which have actually cost its credibility a great deal and threaten the perception of Rule of Law at multiple levels



  15. Links 19/9/2019: Samba 4.11.0 and Kubernetes 1.16

    Links for the day



  16. Update on Koch v EPO: Internal Appeals Committee (IAC) Composition Still Likely Illegal

    An important EPO case, concerning a dismissed staff representative, shows what ILO-AT and the EPO's Internal Appeals Committee boil down to



  17. Links 18/9/2019: Fedora Linux 31 Beta, PCLinuxOS 2019.09 Update

    Links for the day



  18. Links 17/9/2019: CentOS 7.7 and Funtoo Linux 1.4 Released

    Links for the day



  19. EPO is Not European

    Internationalists and patent trolls are those who stand to benefit from the 'globalisation' of low-quality and law-breaking patents such as patents on algorithms, nature and life itself; the EPO isn't equipped to serve its original goals anymore



  20. The EPO's Central Staff Committee and SUEPO (Staff Union) Respond to “Fascist Bills” Supported by EPO President António Campinos

    Raw material pertaining to the latest Campinos "scandal"; what Campinos said, what the Central Staff Committee (CSC) said, and what SUEPO said



  21. Storm Brewing in the European Patent Office After a Hot Summer

    Things aren't rosy in EPOnia (to say the least); in fact, things have been getting a lot worse lately, but the public wouldn't know judging by what media tells the public (almost nothing)



  22. Why I Once Called for Richard Stallman to Step Down

    Guest post from the developer who recently authored "Getting Stallman Wrong Means Getting The 21st Century Wrong"



  23. As Richard Stallman Resigns Let's Consider Why GNU/Linux Without Stallman and Torvalds Would be a Victory to Microsoft

    Stallman has been ejected after a lot of intentionally misleading press coverage; this is a dark day for Software Freedom



  24. Links 16/9/2019: GNU Linux-libre 5.3, GNU World Order 13×38, Vista 10 Breaks Itself Again

    Links for the day



  25. Links 16/9/2019: Qt Quick on Vulkan, Metal, and Direct3D; BlackWeb 1.2 Reviewed

    Links for the day



  26. Richard Stallman's Controversial Views Are Nothing New and They Distract From Bill Gates' Vastly Worse Role

    It's easier to attack Richard Stallman (RMS) using politics (than using his views on software) and media focus on Stallman's personal views on sexuality bears some resemblance to the push against Linus Torvalds, which leans largely on the false perception that he is sexist, rude and intolerant



  27. Links 16/9/2019: Linux 5.3, EasyOS Releases, Media Backlash Against RMS

    Links for the day



  28. Openwashing Report on Open Networking Foundation (ONF): When Open Source Means Collaboration Among Giant Spying Companies

    Massive telecommunications oligopolies (telecoms) are being described as ethical and responsible by means of openwashing; they even have their own front groups for that obscene mischaracterisation and ONF is one of those



  29. 'Open Source' You Cannot Run Without Renting or 'Licensing' Windows From Microsoft

    When so-called ‘open source’ programs strictly require Vista 10 (or similar) to run, how open are they really and does that not redefine the nature of Open Source while betraying everything Free/libre software stands for?



  30. All About Control: Microsoft is Not Open Source But an Open Source Censor/Spy and GitHub/LinkedIn/Skype Are Its Proprietary Censorship/Surveillance Tools

    All the big companies which Microsoft bought in recent years are proprietary software and all of the company’s big products remain proprietary software; all that “Open Source” is to Microsoft is “something to control and censor“


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