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

02.05.18

Patents on GUIs Are Not Software Patents, But the Software Patents Lobby Ignores Fundamental Facts

Posted in America, Asia, Patents at 1:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Factual errors on GUI patents

GUI for error

Summary: When the Federal Circuit said “OK” to patents on GUIs it basically set the patenting bar even lower than China (for that particular family of patents); it should not be framed as a “win” for software patents, however, for GUIs are not algorithms

THE SUBJECT of patents on user interfaces (GUIs) was brought up here several times, e.g. [1, 2], after the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) had ruled in favour of patents on GUIs. This is very bad. Do not pay attention to many spinners who now attempt to frame that as a win for software patents. GUIs are not algorithms; patents on GUIs, however, are disturbing for all sorts of other reasons.

“Do not pay attention to many spinners who now attempt to frame that as a win for software patents.”Charles Bieneman wrote the following about this precedential decision: “In my view, this is a significant patent-eligibility case, because it supports the proposition that claims reciting nothing more than a process for displaying or arranging data in a computer interface can be patent-eligible. Anecdotally, I can report that many patent examiners take the position that claims reciting “the mere display of data” are not patent-eligible. The Federal Circuit’s precedential decision in Core Wireless provides a solid basis for traversing Section 101 rejections of claims directed to computer displays, and more broadly supports the proposition that software can be patent-eligible even if claims recite no more than processing or arranging data.”

“GUIs are not algorithms; patents on GUIs, however, are disturbing for all sorts of other reasons.”“Federal Circuit Starts 2018 With Two Favorable Decisions For Software Patents,” one headline said, but this is patently untrue. It’s not a software patent. They are touching on Finjan and also on Core Wireless as though these are inherently the same. Regarding Finjan, as we pointed out before, the decision actually did invalidate many software patents (except one). A pretty reliable Twitter account said: “Core Wireless 1/25/18. Patent claim to display interface with “application summary window.” Not ineligible. INTERESTING: first two S101 cases in 2018 find claims eligible. Break from pattern in 2014-2017 in which only two or so cases in entire year upheld eligibility.”

Actually, not quite. In 2017 virtually none was upheld as eligible and in prior years there were quite a few. We wrote a lot about that. And in the case of a GUI, Section 101 is barely even applicable. We’re not entirely surprised to see the above spin. In fact, we sort of foresaw that and as we explained last weekend, the defense strategy, relying on Section 101, was probably unwise. Core Wireless has a bad patent, but it is not a software patent but GUI-related.

“They are touching on Finjan and also on Core Wireless as though these are inherently the same.”Here’s more of that spin: “If #FedCir continues to follow logic of Finjan and Core Wireless ( http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2684.Opinion.1-23-2018.1.PDF …), it is an overdue watershed in eligibility analysis. Because claimed software innovation is done on a computer does not automatically make it a maligned do-it-on-a-computer claim.”

“You are an attorney,” I told the person, “so what do you know about #swpats and software anyway? Let logic guide policy.” What’s more troubling though were the claims that this case was about software patents. It wasn’t.

It has meanwhile turned out that CAFC has another precedential decision: “Paice v Ford Motor (Fed. Cir. 2018) PRECEDENTIAL–1 of 25 IPRs filed by Ford against Paice Patents…”

There’s also another CAFC cases in which Section 101/Alice got reaffirmed: “Fed. Cir. Affirms PTAB Finding Patent Claims for Real Estate Searching Ineligible under 101/Alice…”

“…in the case of a GUI, Section 101 is barely even applicable.”And another IPR: “Maxlinear 1/25/18. IPR. independent claims held unpatentable on appeal (in related case). Remand on patentability of dependent claims.”

Funny how none of the spinners speak about these cases, instead still obsessing over a case that has nothing to do with software and everything to do with a visual interface. Joseph Robinson and Robert Schaffer at Watchtroll take advantage of this misuse of Section 101 to state:

LG moved for summary judgment that the claims are “abstract” and invalid under Section 101. The district court denied the motion. The claims are not abstract, because the “application,” “summary window,” and “unlaunched state” are applied to specific devices, like cell phones.

Right. This is bad for many reasons, but that does not mean that we’re talking about software patents here.

“This is bad for many reasons, but that does not mean that we’re talking about software patents here.”Looking east (at China), GUI patents actually face some barriers, in spite of an open-armed approach towards software patents and just about any conceivable thing. As one news site put it some days ago: “At the end of December 2017 the Beijing IP Court decided the first graphical user interface (GUI) infringement case in China, in a battle between anti-virus software giants Qihoo 360 and Jiangmin. The court rendered a decision in favour of Jiangmin, which is a heavy blow not only to Qihoo 360, but also to thousands of GUI patentees in China. In view of this decision, software companies could easily avoid infringing a GUI if their software is not pre-installed on any hardware.”

An article by Lexfield Law Offices said something similar:

The Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently issued its judgment in the first-in-China infringement suit involving a design patent on GUI, Qihu v. Jiangmin. The court ruled against the patent owner Qihu on the grounds that its design patent as granted is actually directed to a “computer” which thus cannot be effectively enforce against the software product distributed by Jiangmin.

The judgment, if upheld in appeal, would greatly diminish the practical value of Chinese design patents granted on GUI, especially those granted immediately after China first allowed the registration of such patents in May 2014.

[...]

Since SIPO first allowed design patents on GUI in May 2014, it still required that the title be toward a hardware product like a computer or a mobile phone and the drawings show such a hardware product in solid lines. At the first stage, SIPO strictly enforced such requirement toward the first patents filed. This judgment immediately calls into question the enforceability of these early patents.

Put another way, the CAFC’s decision on GUIs almost places the US at a lower scale on the quality prism than even China (SIPO)! That’s really low and we hope that SCOTUS will deal with an appeal on this, as well as on design patents.

“Put another way, the CAFC’s decision on GUIs almost places the US at a lower scale on the quality prism than even China (SIPO)!”Speaking of China, mind this tweet which said: “Beijing Higher People’s Court issues a ruling further strengthening patent enforcement in China. More good news for IP in China. Wish we had more news like this from the US, where IP is under attack on many fronts, but change is possible.”

Under attack? Really?

“The bottom line is, yes, it’s true that patents on GUIs received a lifeline in the US; it should not, however, be mistaken for acceptance of software patents, no matter what lawyers and attorneys try to say.”“What you mean to say is more litigation and by “we” you mean patent aggressors/lawyers,” I told him, not the 99% of the population (which does not profit from litigation).

The bottom line is, yes, it’s true that patents on GUIs received a lifeline in the US; it should not, however, be mistaken for acceptance of software patents, no matter what lawyers and attorneys try to say.

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