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

02.11.18

Some § 101 Cases That the Patent ‘Industry’ Would Rather Not Talk (Much) About

Posted in America, Courtroom at 6:40 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Because that might damage faith in software patents

A quiet area

Summary: With § 101 still being entertained by courts and by PTAB, software patents continue to be invalidated, but these cases receive nowhere near the level of attention Berkheimer v HP received (because patent lawyers prefer to focus only on what suits their agenda)

THE existence of software patents at the USPTO gradually becomes more of a legacy. Sure, new ones continue to be granted, but few are asserted in a court of law. Some of them are regarded/considered to be next to worthless.

“The existence of software patents at the USPTO gradually becomes more of a legacy.”Our previous article, regarding Berkheimer v HP, explained that it’s not really about § 101, contrary to what the patent microcosm would like us to think. Michael Borella said some days ago that this decision “may result in the USPTO having to update its § 101 guidance for examiners and the PTAB.”

May.

Maybe.

Like we said in the last article, this isn’t the Supreme Court. Here is what patent maximalists want to believe:

But the impact of today’s decision may be further-reaching than the other three. At the very least, it provides a degree of clarity as to the evidentiary standard applicable to a § 101 challenge on summary judgment. This may result in the USPTO having to update its § 101 guidance for examiners and the PTAB.

No, the same can be said for other sections. All that the court said was, sufficient evidence needs to be provided. That’s all.

“…Even the US government strives to eliminate what it perceives to be software patents…”In another long article (published at 11:20 PM by Joseph Herndon) the same site said that the “U.S. Government Fails in Attempt to Invalidate U.S. Patents under § 101″ (sounds promising for them, at least on the surface).

Even the US government strives to eliminate what it perceives to be software patents and here are the actual details:

In a bit of an ironic outcome, the U.S. government was unsuccessful in invalidating U.S. patents under § 101. It seems odd that the government issued the patents on the one hand, and later, tried to invalidate them.

Plaintiff, Science Applications International Corp. (“SAIC”), claimed that the U.S. government infringed four patents by entering into contracts with plaintiff’s competitors for the procurement of specialized heads up displays (“HUD”) and night vision goggles that allegedly use SAIC’s patented technology. Defendant, the United States, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), contending that Plaintiff’s patents claim ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The patents at issue here are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,787,012; 8,817,103; 9,229,230; and 9,618,752. The four patents form two patent families due to the interrelatedness of the applications.

These aren’t software patents. They involve actual hardware. So ascribing this to a § 101 failure is misleading at best; this was a poor defense strategy/argument. We see lots of those.

“…the same court everyone likes to cite in relation to Berkheimer v HP has just eliminated another bogus patent (again using 35 USC § 101/Alice)”Remember that just because a defendant invokes § 101 does not guarantee success. Sometimes § 101 just isn’t relevant at all.

In other news (from another site), the same court everyone likes to cite in relation to Berkheimer v HP has just eliminated another bogus patent (again using 35 USC § 101/Alice). Not so exciting for patent maximalists, so of course they mostly ignored it. It’s a § 101 affirmation:

If you want an example of the kind of patent-eligibility question that is now easy to resolve under the Alice abstract idea test, look to the Federal Circuit’s non-precedential decision in Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, No. 2017-1463 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2018) (opinion by Judge Stoll, joined by Judges Lourie and Wallach). In this case, the court affirmed a lower court’s summary judgment of invalidity under 35 USC § 101 of claims of two patents directed to computerized methods for locating available real estate, i.e., property for purchase.

[...]

The Court strictly followed the Alice/Mayo test for section 101, and noted that this test is not concerned with whether an artisan skilled in the art can perform the method claimed by the patent nor whether the claim language is sufficiently definite, novel, or non-obvious, but rather whether the character of a claim as a whole is directed to a patent-ineligible subject matter. Taken on the face of the claims and the specification, the Court found that SAIC’s patents combine existing computer technology, sensors, and calculations in an unconventional way in order to reach a solution to the problem of alignment and consistently accurate display. Because SAIC did not stop at the concept of superimposition (in the abstract) but instead provided a solution for achieving accuracy and consistency in image registration, SAIC’s claims are not directed to an abstract idea.

That’s just more of the usual from CAFC. It’s an Alice/Mayo test. More such examples were mentioned in recent days.

“PTAB Reversed Examiner’s 101 Rejection of Robotic Software Claims,” to name one example (but this is merely an examination stage refutation). A much higher level decision wound up as usual: “Zouli v Google (Fed. Cir. 2018); 101/CBM Case; CAFC Affirmed PTAB” (goodbye bogus patent).

“Another showing of disdain for the legal system or for justice itself?”Earlier today Patently-O was bashing rejection of patents using cartoons (those are typically anti-Alice). Another showing of disdain for the legal system or for justice itself? Every lost patent is a tragedy? Some politicians say “corporations are people” and patent lawyers certainly act as though “patents are people”. Maybe one day they’ll carry around billboards that say “patent lives matter”.

This came a few days after a misleading headline from Patently-O‘s Dennis Crouch — in a post which probably constitutes more of his PTAB baiting. How on Earth did he come up with a headline like “Climate Change is an Abstract Idea?”

Here’s how:

In the ex parte appeal, the PTAB has affirmed the examiner’s rejection on eligibility grounds – finding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of “selecti[ng] data (temperature, radiation) obtained from known and existing technology and then using the data to make a correlation.”

[...]

With respect to Alice/Mayo step-two (“something more”), the PTAB found that the improvement offered by the invention “is an improvement in the application of the mathematical relationship in determining substance concentration, which is, itself, an abstract idea.”

The decision would look like a good candidate for a civil action challenge or appeal – except that the PTAB also found the claims obvious.

So what? That’s justice. It’s not “death squads” as the maximalists want us to believe. It’s just an invalidation of mere patents (or pieces of paper). No life or death at stake. Yet they use words like “kill”.

“No life or death at stake. Yet they use words like “kill”.”“Software Patent Application Killed by the PTAB with 101/Alice,” one of them said. He also said “smokes” (like “kills” and “survives”). “PTAB “Smokes” Another IBM Patent Application with 101/Alice,” says the outline. Notice the terminology of war. They make it sound like some sort of massacre or genocide; never mind if this isn’t criminal law or even immigration law but a bunch of mere patents. Another one about Section 101: “PTAB Affirms Examiner’s 101 Rejection of Method for Measuring IR Absorption by Increasing and Decreasing Temp of a Body…”

“Quite frankly, we don’t expect academic/scholarly honesty from these people. They’re in this occupation for the money, not principles.”At least he didn’t call that “Climate Change” like Dennis Crouch did (perhaps hoping to insinuate, as before, that patent rejection is the moral/scientific equivalent of climate change denial).

Quite frankly, we don’t expect academic/scholarly honesty from these people. They’re in this occupation for the money, not principles. Here’s an article by Charles Bieneman, who again uses the word “Survive” (war lexicon). Patents do not “survive” (the war narrative), they can just be upheld as valid or rejected as invalid. From Bieneman’s article:

A little less than a year after finding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159, directed to an inertial tracking system, were patent-eligible under the Alice abstract idea test, the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that claims of the ’159 patent have not been shown to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Elbit Systems of America, LLC. v. Thales Visionix, Inc., No. 2017-1355 (Fed. Cir. Feb 6, 2018) (precedential) (opinion by Judge Wallach, joined by Judges Moore and Stoll).

[...]

The Federal Circuit sided with the patent owner, whose expert had explained the benefits of the two-step-method over the three-step method. And arguments that the PTAB improperly failed to acknowledge expert testimony that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood prior art as disclosing the recited integration were merely an attempt to create legal error by looking at PTAB statements in isolation.

Patent maximalists took note of the above decision and Janice Mueller‏ wrote: “Thales Visionix wins again! Elbit v Thales Visionix FedCir 2/6/18 affirms PTAB IPR determination that challenged claims of TV’s ‘159 patent would NOT have been obvious. TV’s expert witness testimony was critical in distinguishing prior art.”

As expected, Patently-O wrote about it:

In its IPR final decision, the PTAB sided with the patentee – holding that Elbit had failed to prove that the challenged claims of Thales patent were obvious. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed – holding that “substantial evidence” supported the finding.

[...]

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB was the best position to determine expert credibility and thus declined to disturb those credibility determinations. Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. Illumina, Inc., 620 F. App’x 916, 922 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“The PTAB [i]s entitled to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.”) The challenger’s attorneys attempted to support their case with an explanation that PHOSITA would understand the meaning the prior art – That argument was rejected on appeal, however, as attorney argument rather than evidence based. Rather, to make the argument, the party should have actually presented evidence on the level of understanding of a person of skill in the art.

As we said before, not every Alice/§ 101 challenge/defense will result in patent rejection. It’s not a magic wand and it only works where it is applicable. Alice is applicable to just about every algorithm and it should also be applicable where algorithms are being ‘dressed up’ as ‘device’ — something which this new post deals with although it fails to grasp that “mechanical arts” is just a fancy term for machine. To quote: “A listener/reader pointed me in the direction of the recent oral argument at the Federal Circuit in Robert Bosch v. ITC. The case appears to concern patents of inventor/patent attorney Dr. Stephen Gass. The oral argument highlights that §101/Alice arguments are now making their way into the mechanical arts.”

“We are still hoping that one day those loopholes too will be closed and patents granted owing to these loopholes be voided (like patents on plants and seeds in Europe).”Here in Europe and also in places like India and New Zealand loopholes were intentionally crafted to enable patenting of software by misportrayal thereof. Just claiming some algorithm to be executable/runnable on some particular machine does not change the fact that it’s abstract.

We are still hoping that one day those loopholes too will be closed and patents granted owing to these loopholes be voided (like patents on plants and seeds in Europe). Over the past few decades patent scope had been stretched to the point where it became laughable. Some companies actually pursue patents on human genome as though it’s an invention and last month CAFC ruled in favour of a patent on GUIs. We hope that the Supreme Court will overturn that latter decision.

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 16/7/2018: Linux 4.18 RC5, Latte Dock v0.8, Windows Back Doors Resurface

    Links for the day



  2. Alliance for US Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) Misleads the US Government, Pretending to Speak for Startups While Spreading Lies for the Patent Microcosm

    In the United States, which nowadays strives to raise the patent bar, the House Small Business Committee heard from technology firms but it also heard from some questionable front groups which claim to support "startups" and "jobs" (but in reality support just patents on the face of it)



  3. 'Blockchain', 'Cloud' and Whatever Else Gets Exploited to Work Around 35 U.S.C. § 101 (or the EPC) and Patent Algorithms/Software

    Looking for a quick buck or some low-quality patents (which courts would almost certainly reject), opportunists carry on with their gold rush, aided by buzzwords and hype over pretty meaningless things



  4. PTAB Defended by the EFF, the R Street Institute and CCIA as the Number of Petitions (IPRs) Continues to Grow

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) come to the rescue when patently-bogus patents are used, covering totally abstract concepts (like software patents do); IPRs continue to increase in number and opponents of PTAB, who conveniently cherry-pick Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, can't quite stop that



  5. IAM/Joff Wild May Have Become a de Facto Media Partner of the Patent Troll iPEL

    Invitation to trolls in China, courtesy of the patent trolls' lobby called "IAM"; this shows no signs of stopping and has become rather blatant



  6. Cautionary Tale: ILO Administrative Tribunal Cases (Appeals) 'Intercepted' Under António Campinos

    The ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT) is advertised by the EPO's management as access to justice, but it's still being undermined quite severely to the detriment of aggrieved staff



  7. Asking the USPTO to Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 101 is Like Asking Pentagon Officials to Pursue Real, Persistent Peace

    Some profit from selling weapons, whereas others profit from patent grants and litigation; what's really needed right now is patent sanity and adherence to the public interest as well as the law itself, e.g. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions



  8. BT and Sonos Are Still Patent Bullies, Seeing Patents as a Backup Plan

    The companies seeking to complement their business (or make up for their demise) using patents are still suing rivals while calling that litigation "research and development" (the same old euphemism)



  9. Jim Skippen, a Longtime Patent Troll, Admits That the Trolling Sector is Collapsing

    Canada's biggest patent troll (WiLAN) bar BlackBerry doesn't seem to be doing too well as its CEO leaves the domain altogether



  10. From East Asia to the Eastern District of Texas: XYZ Printing, Maxell, and X2Y Attenuators

    The patent aggression, which relies on improper litigation venues, harms innocent parties a great deal; only their lawyers benefit from all this mess



  11. Links 14/7/2018: Mesa 18.1.4, Elisa 0.2.1, More on Python's Guido van Rossum

    Links for the day



  12. Number of Oppositions to Grants/Awards of European Patents at the EPO Has Skyrocketed, Based on Internal Data

    The number of challenged patents continues to soar and staff of the EPO (examiners already over-encumbered by far too much work, due to unrealistic targets) would struggle to cope or simply be compelled to not properly deal with oppositions



  13. 'Transaction' Complete: Former EPO Executive From Belgium Takes the Seat of António Campinos at EU-IPO

    Rumours that Belgium made a back room deal with Battistelli may be further substantiated with the just-confirmed appointment of Archambeau



  14. EPO Abuses Against People With Disabilities Followed by Legal Bullying?

    The new President of the EPO is not (at least not yet) obeying court rulings from ILO; The above move seems like an attempt to derail ongoing cases at the ILO’s Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT), i.e. yet more strong-arming



  15. Weeks Later António Campinos Still in Noncompliance With the Courts (ILO's Tribunal)

    'report card' for the ever-so-intransparent (or nontransparent) new President of the EPO, who does not even bother obeying court rulings



  16. Links 13/7/2018: Kube 0.7.0, Trisquel 8.0 LTS Reviewed

    Links for the day



  17. Constitutionality and CJEU as Barriers, the UPC Agreement (UPCA) is Already Moot in the United Kingdom

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) isn't going anywhere and the UK merely "explores" what to do about it; for Team UPC, however, this means that the UK "confirms intention to remain in Unitary Patent system after Brexit" (clearly a case of deliberate misinformation)



  18. It's Not About EPO 'Backlog' But About Faking 'Production' by Lowering Standards

    Remarks on the EPO dropping all pretenses of genuine care for patent quality; it's all about speed now, never mind if wrongly-granted patents can cause billions in damages across Europe (a lot of that money flows towards patent law firms)



  19. Links 12/7/2018: GTK+ 4.0 Plans, OpenBSD Gains Wi-Fi “Auto-Join”

    Links for the day



  20. The Anti-35 U.S.C. § 101 Lobby Pushes Old News Into the Headlines in an Effort to Resurrect/Protect Software Patents

    The software patenting proponents (law firms for the most part) are still doing anything they can -- stretching even months into the past -- in an effort to modify the law in defiance of Supreme Court (SCOTUS) rulings



  21. Thomas Massie and Marcy Kaptur Are Promoting the Interests of Patent Trolls and Patent Lawyers While Calling That “Innovation”

    Remarks on the ongoing effort to promote patent trolls’ interests under the guise of “helping small businesses” — a very misleading propaganda pattern that we have been finding in Unified Patent Court (UPC) lobbying at the EPO



  22. Links 12/7/2018: Mesa 18.1.4 RC, Curl 7.61.0

    Links for the day



  23. Texas: When Trade Secret 'Damages' Are Almost 1,000 Times Higher Than Patent 'Damages'

    It's possible to deal with conflicts and disputes using means other than patents; a new trade secret misappropriation case and a new study from Ofer Eldar (Duke Law) and Neel Sukhatme (Georgetown Law) bring examples from Texas



  24. Cellspin Soft Will Likely Need to Pay the Accused Party's Lawyers Too After Frivolous Litigation With Patents Eliminated Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

    Pursuing bogus (questionable) patents and going even further by asserting them in court can be worse than a waste of time and money; it can actually cause the target of assertion to be compensated (legal fees) at the plaintiff’s expense — a critical fact largely ignored by the patent ‘industry’



  25. The Lack of Genuine, Honest Discussion About Patent Quality Means That Under António Campinos Software Patents Will Continue to be Granted, Campinos Strives to Make Them 'Unitary'

    The agenda of the litigation 'industry' is still being served by the existing EPO administration; this is a problem because not only do they grant patents on just about anything but they also attempt to broaden litigation jurisdiction



  26. Links 11/7/2018: Xen 4.11, Ubuntu Infographics, Lockbox and Notes

    Links for the day



  27. Links 10/7/2018: Wine 3.12, FreeNAS 11.2 Beta, GNU Helps Journalism

    Links for the day



  28. Patent Trolls Rally/Advertise Thomas Massie's Bill to Abolish PTAB and Promote Software Patents in the US

    Vocal patent maximalists (or think tanks of the litigation 'industry') want us to think that the US is too restrictive when it comes to patents (the opposite is true) and tries to change the law so as to plague/saturate the system with patent lawsuits they stand to gain from at the expense of practicing companies



  29. The Demise of East Texan Courts and the Ascent of PTAB, Alice and a SCOTUS-Compliant CAFC May Mean That US Software Patents Are Officially 'Dead'

    Companies come to grips with the need to divest and distance themselves from abstract patents; such patents are simply not tolerated by courts anymore (even if patent offices continue granting many such patents for the sake of profit)



  30. Signs of Upcoming Changes at EPO: Raimund Lutz, Željko Topić and Other 'Team Battistelli' Folks Are Being Replaced

    Vice-Presidents of DG1, DG4 and DG5 are being replaced just over a week after the Campinos tenure began (decisions actually made last week); Might this suggest the imminent implosion of so-called 'Team Battistelli'?


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