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. The Whitewashing of the EPO Under António Campinos

    The charm offensive of the 'new and improved' EPO President seems to mostly boil down to a PR campaign, as we expected all along



  2. Links 22/1/2019: Kodachi 5.8, LibreOffice 6.2 Finished

    Links for the day



  3. Software Patents Are a Dying Breed, So Marks & Clerk and Other Legal Monoliths Promote the EPO's Buzzwords (Loopholes)

    Patents that courts would almost certainly reject (and invalidate) are routinely promoted as "AI", "SDV" and similar acronyms and buzzwords, either misleading or intentionally misplaced (nowadays "AI" is often just a synonym for "machine" or "algorithm")



  4. A Fortnight After His Diplomatic Immunity Ends Outgoing EPO Vice-President Željko Topić is in Court in Zagreb, Croatia

    Court minutes for a Željko Topić case heard 5 days ago



  5. Links 20/1/2019: Exo 0.12.4 and Libhandy 0.0.7 Released

    Links for the day



  6. JUVE Creates English Site, Promotes Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The generally good press outlet has taken a turn for the worse; it looks like it's doing more lobbying than reporting nowadays



  7. The Indian Ministry of Commerce Tries to Bend Patent Law in Favour of Foreign Monopolies

    There's an attempt to tilt patent law against the interests of India; but vigilant few are observing and reporting it, even in English



  8. The EFF Must Return That 'Internship' Money to Google or It Would Disgrace the Patent Reform Movement (by Association)

    Whether real or perceived, the EFF’s alleged bias is at stake now that Google money — not just money from a billionaire (Cuban) — lands on its lap; it can, by extension or association, serve to discredit patent reformers



  9. EPO Defying Patent Restrictions/Limits From the European Parliament, the European Commission and the European Countries It Claims to Represent

    The departure from the EPC (and from the rule of law) at the EPO still means that patents are being granted on things that, as per the constitutions, should never have been patentable



  10. The UPC is Dead. But Bristows is Now Fully Engaged in Necrophilia.

    In an effort to float a dead project the deceiving folks from Team UPC pretend that everything is ready to go (commence) because they've managed to find some gowns and robes



  11. Links 19/1/2019: Wikipedia Cofounder Moves to GNU/Linux, Wine 4.0 RC7 Released, Godot 3.1 Beta 2, NomadBSD 1.2 RC1

    Links for the day



  12. Links 18/1/2019: Mesa 18.3.2, Rust 1.32.0

    Links for the day



  13. Links 17/1/2019: ZFS Debate Returns, AWS Pains Free Software

    Links for the day



  14. US Patent Lawyers Will Need to Change Profession or End up Becoming Abundantly Redundant, Unemployed

    In the age of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 it’s too risky to sue with dodgy patents; moreover, the Federal Circuit‘s growing adoption of Alice means that no recent cases have given hope to patent maximalists and litigation frequency has fallen again (at double-digit rates)



  15. Links 16/1/2019: Deepin 15.9 Released and Mozilla Fenix

    Links for the day



  16. Brexit Has Failed, But So Has the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    Even though all signs indicate that the Unified Patent Court (UPC) will never become a reality spin is to be expected from Team UPC, still looking to profit from more litigation and expanded scope



  17. IBM, Which Will Soon be Buying Red Hat, is Promoting Software Patents in Europe

    Even days apart/within confirmation of IBM's takeover of Red Hat IBM makes it clear that it's very strongly in favour of software patents, not only in the US but also in Europe



  18. Team UPC on Dead UPC: Choosing Gowns for Corpses

    The campaign of lies, long waged by Team UPC in order to manipulate politicians and courts, hasn’t stopped even in 2019 (IAM threw in the towel, but some of Team UPC is still ‘embalming’ UPCA)



  19. Links 15/1/2019: MX Linux MX-18 Continuum Reviewed, Mageia 7 Artwork Voting

    Links for the day



  20. Council of Europe (CoE) Recognises There's No Justice at the EPO

    It’s now the Council of Europe‘s turn to speak out about the grave state of international organisations that exist in Europe but aren’t subjected to European law (which they routinely violate with impunity)



  21. Dominion Harbor -- Armed by Microsoft's Biggest Patent Troll -- Goes After the World's Biggest Android OEMs, Huawei and Samsung

    Dominion Harbor, the patent troll that gets bucketloads of patents from Intellectual Ventures (a patent troll strongly connected to Microsoft and Bill Gates), is still suing using shell entities



  22. Links 14/1/2019: Linux 5.0 RC2 and DXVK 0.95 Released

    Links for the day



  23. Only the Higher Courts -- Not Trump's 'Poster Child' -- Can Bring Back Software Patents

    Software patents are not making a "comeback" as some like to claim; in fact, the latest court cases and notably their outcomes suggest that nothing has changed



  24. “Uniloc is a Lawsuit Factory”

    Apple is a very secretive company, so it is hard to know what goes on with the patent troll Uniloc



  25. European Patent Office a Textbook Example of Lawless, Rogue Institutions

    The tyrannical nature of the EPO is still being demonstrated by the sad fate of Patrick Corcoran; technical judges at the EPO are feeling intimidated by nontechnical politicians and bankers



  26. No, Software Patents Are Not Poised to Make a Comeback Under New US Patent Office Rules

    Poor understanding of the difference between patent courts and patent offices is to blame for widely-spread misinformation from Ars Technica (part of Condé Nast)



  27. IP Kat Has Turned From EPO Critic (to the Point of Being Blocked by the EPO) to EPO Whitewasher That Gags EPO Whistleblowers

    The EPO tried to forcibly gag (block) IP Kat like it blocks Techrights (since 2014); failing that, the EPO got the blog to just act as a whitewashing operation for Team Campinos (more or less the same as Team Battistelli)



  28. Linspire 'Reborn' is Still Working for Microsoft and Facilitating Surveillance on GNU/Linux Users

    GNU/Linux spyware scandals may be back (and it's not about Canonical and Amazon but Linspire and Microsoft); Microsoft is meanwhile exposing innocent kids to pedophiles and it refuses to explain or defend this



  29. Links 12/1/2019: Wine 4.0 RC6, X-Plane 11.30, SuperTuxKart 0.10 Beta, LibreOffice 6.2 RC2

    Links for the day



  30. The EPO's Low Patent Quality Can Kill the European Software Industry and Kill People Too

    The patents granted by the EPO are often invalid as per courts' decisions, which means that fake/illegitimate European Patents saturate the market and discourage development (e.g. of software and life-saving drugs)


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