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

02.20.18

The Patent Trolls’ Lobby is Distorting the Record of CAFC on PTAB

Posted in America, Courtroom, Deception, Patents at 4:39 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Distortion has become an art form

Summary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which deals with appeals from PTAB, has been issuing many decisions in favour of § 101, but those aren’t being talked about or emphasised by the patent ‘industry’

THE last post from yesterday, which was about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), showed an increase in activity and likely growing pressure for USPTO examiners to reject software patents (PTAB watches what they do). Clearly, based on recent studies, not enough software patents are being rejected (not yet anyway) as many are pure rubbish and it's still profitable to the Office (the financial incentive perturbs the process).

According to these two examples from yesterday [1, 2], not only PTAB rejects software patents; examiners do too (“PTAB Affirmed Examiner’s [Section] 101 Rejection of Software Claims in a patent application” and “PTAB Affirmed Examiner’s 101 Rejection of Philips Patent Application Claims for Shape Sensing with optical fiber”).

This is generally very encouraging. It’s just a shame that examiners do let software patents slip in sometimes.

Eventually, however, it’s the courts (not PTAB or examiners) that get to decide on things unless there’s an out-of-court settlement. Affirmations of PTAB decisions by CAFC are as recent as days ago, citing Alice/Section 101. This has become the new normal. There are other grounds for dismissal, but this scenario is most common. At lower courts the situation is a tad different, for instance:

The court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff’s synthetic gem investment product patent encompassed unpatentable subject matter because there were genuine disputes of fact whether an individual defendant was estopped from challenging the patent’s validity.

Putting aside the legalese, what we see here is a case going forward, but it’s not CAFC. CAFC typically (about 80% of the time) accepts PTAB’s veto of a patent (or patents) and closes the case. Sites of patent lawyers still obsess over the exceptions, i.e. the situations in which CAFC expresses a disagreement. For example:

In practice however, it is a rare reference that includes a technical explanation that is so strongly worded to satisfy the teaching away standard. Yet, as the Federal Circuit made clear this week, less pronounced evidence of divergent technical teachings cannot be disregarded by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).

Like we said yesterday, patent maximalists now piggyback a decision or two to ‘scandalise’ PTAB. We saw new examples of that less than 24 hours ago. Yesterday afternoon IAM’s Richard Lloyd spread the Berkheimer falsehoods [1, 2, 3, 4] again. He did this in order to promote software patents, calling it “blockbuster” even though it’s not (Managing IP had labeled it the same thing). Here is what he wrote with the words “big boost” in the headline. What a liar. “Blockbuster” is a word that was also repeated by others, along with “boost”. What a pathetic echo chamber. They’re now trying to influence the USPTO’s subject matter eligibility guidance, citing Berkheimer. To quote:

If you want to submit comments on how you think the subject matter eligibility guidance should be revised — particularly in response to the recent Berkheimer v. HP precedential opinion — you can still do so.

But it had no substantial impact and wasn’t really about Section 101 (§ 101), just as Aatrix Software, Inc. v Green Shades wasn’t. We wrote about that too. So did Michael Borella, who said: “Aatrix brought an infringement action against Green Shades in the Middle District of Florida, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,171,615 and 8,984,393. Green Shades filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the grounds that all asserted claims were not eligible for patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

As expected, § 101 does not always work. It’s not applicable to everything. But Aatrix (the above case) isn’t quite what the patent ‘industry’ tries to make of it. They’re just desperate for ‘ammo’.

There has long been an attempt to create a rift between CAFC and PTAB, but it never quite worked. Sites like Watchtroll and Patently-O has been attempting that for years. Here’s Watchtroll writing about a decision that we wrote about last weekend. The patent maximalists attempted to frame it as US government hypocrisy — an allegation we debunked last week.

Here’s Watchtroll’s post about Nordt’s CAFC case and almost pure spam/ad about another CAFC case (it’s all just marketing, but in the form of ‘articles’).

Dennis Crouch wrote about this case as well as another (Xitronix Corp. v KLA-Tencor Corp) — a case which was mentioned a lot only because the decision is precedential [1, 2]. Other CAFC cases that got covered [1, 2] as recently as yesterday [1, 2] were mostly disregarded. They ignore cases or rulings unless they deal with § 101. It’s really the bottom of the barrel. This particular one showed the patent microcosm moaning about the “two-part test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank [...] albeit in a nonprecedential case.” To quote the relevant part:

One of the more frustrating aspects of the current judicial patent eligibility framework is the propensity for courts, even the Federal Circuit, to carry out the two-part test from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l in a conclusory fashion. When this occurs, the claims under review are most likely going to be found non-statutory and invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In this case, the Federal Circuit actually provides ample reasoning for finding that claims fail the test, albeit in a nonprecedential case.

Watchtroll did the cherry-picking of CAFC cases yesterday, finding — at best — one single case resulting not in overturning of a PTAB decision (it vacated). To recapitulate some old statistics:

  • Only about 2% of patents (granted by examiners) are independently examined
  • CAFC agrees with PTAB about 80% of the time
  • The vast majority of the industry is supportive of PTAB

Don’t let lobbying sites such as IAM change perception. They cannot change the underlying facts, so they are attempting to change politicians’ understanding of the patent system.

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 13/12/2018: IRS Migration, GNOME 3.31.3 Released

    Links for the day



  2. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Decisions Still Uncontroversial Unless One Asks the Patent Maximalists

    Contrary to what the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has claimed, PTAB is liked by companies that actually create things and opposition to PTAB comes from power brokers of the Koch brothers, law firms, and trolls (including those who foolishly repeat them)



  3. Latest Talk From IBM’s Manny Schecter Shows That IBM Hasn't Changed and After the Red Hat Takeover It'll Continue to Promote Software Patents

    IBM's hardheaded attitude and patent aggression unaffected by its strategic acquisition of a company that at least claimed to oppose software patents (whilst at the same time pursuing them)



  4. The European Patent Troll Wants as Much Litigation as Possible

    Patent quality is a concept no longer recognisable at the European Patent Office; all that the management understands is speed and PACE, which it conflates with quality in order to register as much cash as possible before the whole thing comes crashing down (bubbles always implode at the end)



  5. António Campinos Turns His 'Boss' Into His Lapdog, Just Like Battistelli and Kongstad

    The European Patent Organisation expects us to believe that Josef Kratochvíl will keep the Office honest while his predecessor, the German who failed to do anything about Battistelli's abuses, becomes officially subservient to António Campinos



  6. Links 12/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.1 Released, CNCF Takes Control of etcd

    Links for the day



  7. EPO Trust, Leadership and Commitment

    "Trust, leadership and commitment" is the latest publication from EPO insiders, who in the absence of free speech and freedom of association for the union/representation are an essential spotlight on EPO abuses



  8. Links 11/12/2018: Tails 3.11, New Firefox, FreeBSD 12.0

    Links for the day



  9. Number of Filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Highest in Almost Two Years

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), which [cref 113718 typically invalidate software patents by citing 35 U.S.C. § 101], are withstanding negative rhetoric and hostility from Iancu



  10. With 'Brexit' in a Lot of Headlines Team UPC Takes the Unitary Patent Lies up a Notch

    Misinformation continues to run like water; people are expected to believe that the UPC, an inherently EU-centric construct, can magically come to fruition in the UK (or in Europe as a whole)



  11. The EPO Not Only Abandoned the EPC But Also the Biotech Directive

    Last week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first placeLast week's decision (T1063/18, EPO Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.04) shows that there's still a long way to go before the Office and the Organisation as a whole fulfil their obligation to those who birthed the Organisation in the first place



  12. Patents on Abstract Things and on Life (or Patents Which Threaten Lives) Merely Threaten the Very Legitimacy of Patent Offices, Including EPO

    Patent Hubris and maximalism pose a threat or a major risk to the very system that they claim to be championing; by reducing the barrier to entry (i.e. introducing low-quality or socially detrimental patents) they merely embolden ardent critics who demand patent systems as a whole be abolished; the EPO is nowadays a leading example of it



  13. Links 10/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC6 and Git 2.20

    Links for the day



  14. US Courts Make the United States' Patent System Sane Again

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and other factors are making the patent system in the US a lot more sane



  15. Today's USPTO Grants a Lot of Fake Patents, Software Patents That Courts Would Invalidate

    The 35 U.S.C. § 101 effect is very much real; patents on abstract/nonphysical ideas get invalidated en masse (in courts/PTAB) and Director Andrei Iancu refuses to pay attention as if he's above the law and court rulings don't apply to him



  16. A Month After Microsoft Claimed Patent 'Truce' Its Patent Trolls Keep Attacking Microsoft's Rivals

    Microsoft's legal department relies on its vultures (to whom it passes money and patents) to sue its rivals; but other than that, Microsoft is a wonderful company!



  17. Good News: US Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Revisit Alice, Most Software Patents to Remain Worthless

    35 U.S.C. § 101 will likely remain in tact for a long time to come; courts have come to grips with the status quo, as even the Federal Circuit approves the large majority of invalidations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) panels, initiated by inter partes reviews (IPRs)



  18. Florian Müller's Article About SEPs and the EPO

    Report from the court in Munich, where the EPO is based



  19. EPO Vice-President Željko Topić in New Article About Corruption in Croatia

    The Croatian newspaper 7Dnevno has an outline of what Željko Topić has done in Croatia and in the EPO in Munich; it argues that this seriously erodes Croatia's national brand/identity



  20. The Quality of European Patents Continues to Deteriorate Under António Campinos and Software Patents Are Advocated Every Day

    The EPC in the European Patent Office and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the USPTO annul most if not all software patents; under António Campinos, however, software patents are being granted in Europe and the USPTO exploits similar tricks



  21. Team UPC is Still Spreading False Rumours in an Effort to Trick Politicians and Pressure Judges

    Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they're struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up



  22. Patents on Life and Patents That Kill the Poor Would Only Delegitimise the European Patent Office

    After Mayo, Myriad and other SCOTUS cases (the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reluctant to grant patents on life; the European Patent Office (EPO), however, goes in the opposite direction, even in defiance of the European Patent Convention



  23. EPO 'Untapped Potential'

    "Campinos is diligently looking for ways to further increase the Office’s output without increasing the number of examiners," says the EPO-FLIER team



  24. Links 9/12/2018: New Linux Stable Releases (Notably Linux 4.19.8), RC Coming, and Unifont 11.0.03

    Links for the day



  25. Links 8/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.0, Mageia 7 Beta, WordPress 5.0

    Links for the day



  26. The European Patent Organisation is Like a Private Club and Roland Grossenbacher is Back in It

    In the absence of Benoît Battistelli quality control at the EPO is still not effective; patents are being granted like the sole goal is to increase so-called 'production' (or profit), appeals are being subjected to threats from Office management, and external courts (courts that assess patents outside the jurisdiction of the Office/Organisation) are being targeted with a long-sought replacement like the Unified Patent Court, or UPC (Unitary Patent)



  27. Links 7/12/2018: GNU Guix, GuixSD 0.16.0, GCC 7.4, PHP 7.3.0 Released

    Links for the day



  28. The Federal Circuit's Decision on Ancora Technologies v HTC America is the Rare Exception, Not the Norm

    Even though the PTAB does not automatically reject every patent when 35 U.S.C. § 101 gets invoked we're supposed to think that somehow things are changing in favour of patent maximalists; but all they do is obsess over something old (as old as a month ago) and hardly controversial



  29. The European Patent Office Remains a Lawless Place Where Judges Are Afraid of the Banker in Chief

    With the former banker Campinos replacing the politician Battistelli and seeking to have far more powers it would be insane for the German Constitutional Court to ever allow anything remotely like the UPC; sites that are sponsored by Team UPC, however, try to influence outcomes, pushing patent maximalism and diminishing the role of patent judges



  30. Many of the Same People Are Still in Charge of the European Patent Office Even Though They Broke the Law

    "EPO’s art collection honoured with award," the EPO writes, choosing to distract from what actually goes on at the Office and has never been properly dealt with


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