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

02.05.18

The Efforts to Work Around 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Why IBM is So Afraid of § 101

Posted in America, IBM, Law, Patents at 3:26 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

IBM’s actual business has been sent to China (notably Lenovo)

Lenovo notebook

Summary: § 101, which invalidates the lion’s share of software patents in the US, is still the subject of most Internet debates; that’s because restriction/limit on patent scope and almost nothing else really worries the patent microcosm

THE decline/demise of software patents is really hurting IBM because IBM invested/wasted a lot of its cash reserves on a pile of worthless software patents, which are basically worse than worthless. Those patents are bunk, more so after Alice.

We are not arguing that the USPTO stopped issuing software patents. It still issues them (it’s just harder), but courts typically reject these. Yesterday we saw this article titled “Materialise makes software that powers 3-D printing” in which it said that “Materialise now has 165 patents for its software, manufacturing and medical device products.”

How many of these allude just to software and are thus worthless? There’s also an attempt to characterise software patents using all sorts of buzzwords and hype. From the past week alone: “Now Trending in Patent Examination: Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology”, “Filing figures suggest blockchain-related patents boom” and “Financial Services Companies Are Rushing to Patent Blockchain Solutions”. Disguising software patents as “blockchain” isn’t so novel a concept. The applicants or the law firms try to get examiners to say, “well… OK, I don’t get it, I’m not sure what that means, so I’ll grant a patent.”

Here’s one from the weekend: “FOSDEM 2018 blockchain devroom raises questions and discusses #Patents #Povery #Law #Energy #Diversity and #Inclusion aspects of blockchain technology.”

Well, blockchain is software, so forget about patents. Sure, these get granted, but as far as we’re aware, none have been tested in court (yet).

Then there’s the “AI” wave, which IBM keeps riding with publicity stunts like “Watson”. Nobody invented “AI” and its buzzword ‘branches’ (data-driven training/learning). The concepts are very old, but over time there’s more computing power at hand. The corporate media really ought to stop using the “AI” hype because it is being exploited for patent propaganda, such as this from today.

There’s a constant effort to work around Alice and patent software. Watchtroll, for instance, published this thing yesterday, claiming to have come up with new loopholes. It says that the USTPO “recently issued a bulletin explaining that on January 25th, a revised MPEP — Ninth edition (Revision 08.2017) of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) was made available on the USPTO website.”

None of this really changes anything. They’re talking about semantics. So does Charles Bieneman, who days ago wrote that “CAPTCHA Patent Claims Survive Alice Challenge,” albeit only at a district court (i.e. the lowest possible level). To quote:

Patent claims directed to “generating a completely automated test to tell computers and humans apart” – i.e., improvements to what you’ve seen on the Internet as “CAPTCHA” – have survived a motion to dismiss alleging patent-ineligibility under 35 USC § 101 and the Alice abstract idea test. Confident Technologies, Inc. v. AXS Group LLC, No. 3-17-cv-02181 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2018).

If they want to seriously debate § 101, then they ought to look at higher courts, such as the Federal Circuit.

Regarding an IBM patent recently rejected under § 101, one troll friend wrote: “Its ]sic] Tuesday, so of course IBM has #patent application improperly rejected under §101 at PTAB, by ignoring 90% of language and boiling them down to simply claiming “logical parsing of information” https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017008361-01-30-2018-1 …”

IBM has been losing a lot of software patents lately. PTAB invalidates them every week. “IBM is the only operating company that breaks the top-10,” Patently-O wrote the other day in “Firms with the Most Registered Patent Attorneys and Agents”. Well, IBM is operating less and less over time. Dan Gillmor recently called IBM “a company that basically invented patent trolling and employs platoons of patent lawyers,” having watched the company for decades.

From Patently-O:

According to these records, Finnegan has the most total practitioners while Knobbe has the most patent attorneys. IBM is the only operating company that breaks the top-10. The top 25 firms represent ~8% of all registered patent practitioners. The newest patent attorney on the list is Hallie Wimberley, a first-year associate at Reed Smith. My former firm (MBHB) is now up over 100.

Janice Mueller, writing in Twitter the other day, said: “Delicious irony that IBM now #6 on this list. They were one of the anti-software patent leaders in 1970s. Times do change.”

“IBM is now the biggest lobbyist for software [patents] everywhere,” I replied, “not just the US” (she agreed on that). IBM is like a troll almost. It’s not there yet, but it's already feeding trolls.

Can § 101 put an end to most of IBM’s aggression? We certainly hope so. § 101, based on this tweet, is still being used a lot by PTAB. Another § 101 tweet noted that it’s not § 101 but § 103 that did the trick: “Examiner’s Rejection of Philips Imaging Patent Application Claims under 101 Was Reversed by PTAB; 103 Rejection Affirmed: https://storage.googleapis.com/pbf-prod/pdfs/2018-01-23_13260533_175904.pdf …”

Charles Bieneman’s colleague, Kevin Hinman, wrote about 35 U.S.C. § 112. There’s also this new post regarding § 112 (“aspirational claiming”) and regarding Crane Security Technologies, Inc. et al v Rolling Optics AB § 287 got brought up in the Docket Navigator. There’s more than just § 101 at play; here’s § 287 as explained by Hunton & Williams LLP’s Daniel G. Vivarelli, Christopher J. Nichols and Suzanne P. Hosseini. This too falls under AIA:

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) made various changes to the “marking statute” (35 U.S.C. § 287(a)) to permit virtual marking of patent numbers, effective for any lawsuit that was pending on or commenced after September 16, 2011. The purpose of marking an article is to provide constructive notice to the public that it is patented. More importantly, failure to mark an article can preclude the tolling of legal damages for patent infringement until effective notice is given. Ultimately, “[a patentee] is entitled to damages from the time when it either began marking its product in compliance with section 287(a) [i.e., providing constructive notice], or when it actually notified [the accused infringer] of its infringement, whichever [is] earlier.” Thus, in the event of a failure to mark, § 287(a) provides that “… no damages shall be recovered by a patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice.”

Yesterday (or last night) Watchtroll also wrote about § 121: “The safe-harbor provision of 35 U.S.C § 121 is a defense against a double patenting rejection. If it applied, the ‘272 and ‘195 patents could not be used as prior art against the ’471 patent.”

On § 102 (AIA) Gregory Sephton and Anna Schoenfelder (Kramer Levin) wrote:

Over the last few decades, the United States has been incrementally harmonizing its patent law with the rest of the world. Those efforts continued with the signing of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) in 2011. For example, the AIA created a first inventor-to-file patent system, while all but eliminating the best mode requirement. One area where we have not moved as far towards harmonization with the passing of the AIA as some initially thought is patent invalidity based on an “on sale” bar.

What’s worth noting here is that the patent microcosm is typically focused on just one section, namely 101. This is what typically tackles abstract patents such as software patents. What does that obsession imply? They’re mostly concerned/infatuated with patent maximalism, more so than matters like “damages”. That says a lot about them.

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