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

02.25.18

PTAB Continues to Enforce Section 101 and New Paper From Christopher Walker and Melissa Wasserman Has Suggestions for Agency Head Review

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 11:37 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The New World of Agency Adjudication

Summary: Despite endless attempts to undermine PTAB, its work carries on, invalidation of abstract patents continues unabated, and academics who are not patent maximalists (or in bed with the patent ‘industry’) offer constructive advice

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to improve patent quality. To say that PTAB has had an impact would an understatement. The EPO is kicking to the curb its equivalent of PTAB, whereas in the US the role of PTAB grows over time (all-time record last year).

“As one might expect, patent maximalists aren’t happy about it, to say the least.”Over the past week we’ve witnessed many new examples where PTAB and patent examiners squashed applications using Section 101 (here are three new examples with links to the corresponding decisions [1, 2, 3]).

As one might expect, patent maximalists aren’t happy about it, to say the least. Recently, when a rejection was affirmed by PTAB citing laws of nature Patently-O decided to make a big deal out of it, writing not one but several posts about it [1, 2]. To quote:

In its original decision, the PTAB affirmed an examiner rejection – finding the claim ineligible as directed toward a natural phenomenon. However, the patentee requested a rehearing – arguing that the PTAB had failed to properly identify the natural phenomenon being claimed. On reharing though, the PTAB reaffirmed the decision of no patentable subject matter.

In its analysis, the Board first noted that the claims are not directed toward any transformation of the isolated DNA, but rather simply detecting its parts. We know from prior cases that isolated DNA remains a product of nature (Myriad) and that detecting DNA sequence is also a phenomenon of nature (Ariosa).

[...]

It will be interesting to see whether the patentee pushes this case to a District Court or the Federal Circuit for review. Although those options are fun, the more likely outcome is that the patentee will narrow the claims and try again. Mark Nuell at Roberts Mlotkowski argued the case for the applicant.

Also see this article from 6 days ago, titled “Are These INOMax Therapeutic Method Claims Directed To A Natural Phenomenon?”

Natural phenomenon patents were declared not valid owing to 35 USC § 101. This makes perfect sense. To quote:

In Mallinckrodt Hospital Prods. IP Ltd. v. Praxair Distrib., Inc., Judge Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware invalidated personalized method of treatment claims under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to a natural phenomenon. If the Federal Circuit affirms the decision, will it leave room to draw a line that spares other methods of treatment?

[...]

Conducting step 2 of the Mayo/Alice framework, the district court determined that all steps either were routine and conventional (steps (a), (b) and (d)) or did not transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter (step (c).

[...]

Although the district court referred to the Federal Circuit decision in Cleveland Clinic, the claims invalidated in that case were diagnostic claims, not therapeutic method claims. While I would like to predict that the Federal Circuit would not invalidate a method of treatment claim under § 101, Judge Sleet’s analysis highlights the slippery slope presented by the “natural phenomenon” paradigm. The judge characterized the claimed invention as “a patient populations’ natural physiological response to 20 ppm of inhaled nitric oxide treatment.”—couldn’t the same be said about any therapeutic method of treatment?

Attention is now shifting to attempts to discredit the courts and PTAB. The anti-PTABers want the applicant to appeal (of course!) this decision. The anti-PTABers maintain their sick illusion that PTAB is not bound by law and is some out-of-control entity (simply because it keeps patent quality high). There’s a whole case about it in the Supreme Court (to be decided within months). It’s known as Oil States and blogs like Watchtroll and Patently-O keep trying to meddle in it (it’s obvious in whose favour).

“It’s known as Oil States and blogs like Watchtroll and Patently-O keep trying to meddle in it (it’s obvious in whose favour).”A short while ago, Christopher J. Walker and Melissa F. Wasserman (from Ohio State University and University of Texas at Austin) published this new paper that talks about Oil States. It’s 55 pages long and considering recent papers from Wasserman and a colleague (explaining why examiners over-grant), it might be worth a read. She said that this paper “situates PTAB in the modern agency adjudication landscape and explores one critical difference: the lack of agency head review.”

From the paper’s general tone we conclude that they offer constructive advice rather than ridicule of judges (like Patently-O does). They are “exploring alternative mechanisms to remedy the lack of agency-head review at the PTAB.”

Here is the abstract:

In 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) set forth the basics for “formal” adjudication, with the classic account requiring an administrative law judge to make the initial determination and the agency head to have the final word. Today, however, the vast majority of agency adjudications are not paradigmatic “formal” adjudications as set forth in the APA. That is the lost world. It turns out that there is great diversity in the procedures by which federal agencies adjudicate. This new world involves a variety of less-independent administrative judges, hearing officers, and other agency personnel adjudicating disputes. Like in the lost world, however, the agency head retains final decision-making authority.

In 2011, Congress created yet another novel agency tribunal—the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)—to adjudicate disputes between private parties as to the validity of issued patents. Questions abound concerning the PTAB’s proper place in the modern administrative state, as its features depart from the textbook accounts of APA-governed “formal” adjudication. Many of these questions are working their way through the Federal Circuit and to the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Court will decide this Term whether PTAB adjudication unconstitutionally strips parties of their property rights in issued patents.

This Article situates PTAB adjudication within administrative law’s larger landscape of agency adjudication. By surveying this new world of agency adjudication, it becomes clear that PTAB adjudication is not that unusual. But we also identify one core feature of modern agency adjudication that is absent at the PTAB: the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office lacks final decision-making authority. To be sure, the Director has some power to influence outcomes, in her ability to order rehearing and stack the board with those who share her substantive vision. But these second-best means of agency-head control raise problems of their own, including constitutional questions. This Article concludes by exploring alternative mechanisms to remedy the lack of agency-head review at the PTAB.

We don’t expect the corporate/mainstream media to cover this because such media barely understands or cares to educate the public about patents. Will the Justices read it though?

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 13/10/2019: Red Hat CFO Fired and KDE Plasma 5.17 Preparations

    Links for the day



  2. Bill's Media Strategy Amid GatesGate

    There are many ways by which to game the media’s news cycle — an art mastered by the groper in chief



  3. Hard-Core Micro-Soft

    The word "core" is increasingly being (mis)used to portray user-hostile proprietary software as something more benign if not "open"



  4. Free Software Timeline and Federation: When Free Software Advocacy/Support is a Monopoly Expansion Becomes Necessary

    Support for Software Freedom — like support for Free software (think Red Hat/IBM and systemd) — should be decentralised and compartmentalised to make the movement stronger and adaptable



  5. Projection Tactics

    The corporate media hasn't been doing its job lately; it has systematically defamed the wrong people, perhaps in an effort to distract from 'big fish'



  6. Meme: Richard Stallman Irrelevant

    Saint IGNUcius — Richard Stallman — just isn’t the Saint Bill Gates is



  7. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, October 12, 2019

    IRC logs for Saturday, October 12, 2019



  8. Links 13/10/2019: Mastodon 3.0, GNU Binutils 2.33.1, and the Road to KDE Frameworks 6

    Links for the day



  9. The New York Times About the Real Epstein-Software Scandal (Nothing to Do With Stallman)

    The media is belatedly catching up with and covering the real MIT scandal which extends far beyond MIT



  10. Openwashing Reports Are on Hold

    The need to stress Software Freedom and shun all that "open" nonsense has quickly become apparent; some of the people who oppose Stallman turn out to be "Open Source" proponents who don't even value freedom of expression (free speech)



  11. Support the GNU Project and Support Free Speech

    Techrights is loyal to Software Freedom and those eager to promote it; it cannot, however, support those who don’t support free speech



  12. Today's EPO is Working for Patent Trolls and the 'Aye Pee' (IP) 'Industry' Instead of Science

    The EPO is making allegiances and alliances with groups that represent neither science nor businesses but instead push for monopolies, litigation and extortion; lawlessness appears to have become the EPO's very objective instead of what it intends to tackle



  13. The Campinos Car Crash

    The EPO is crashing and we know who’s to blame other than Battistelli



  14. Software Patents (or Monopolies on Algorithms) Are Not 'Property' and They're Not Even Legally Valid

    The EPO insists that it's OK to grant patents on just about everything and propaganda terms are being leveraged to justify this dangerous attitude



  15. The EPO's Universal Patent Injustice Concealed With Polyglottic Tricks

    The EPO is fooling nobody; it's desperate to hide the very simple fact that Battistelli did something illegal and over the past few years every decision issued by the EPO was legally invalid (as per the EPC)



  16. Microsoft Tweets in Linux Platforms

    This observation about the Linux Foundation seems very appropriate (and true) now that Linux.com’s sole editor is (re)posting Microsoft tweets (shades of Jono Bacon)



  17. Links 12/10/2019: Rspamd 2.0, Kdenlive 19.08.2, Plasma Mobile Progress, FreeBSD 12.1 RC1

    Links for the day



  18. IRC Proceedings: Friday, October 11, 2019

    IRC logs for Friday, October 11, 2019



  19. MIT Scandal in a Nutshell

    What happened a month ago, explained using a meme



  20. António Campinos, With Diplomatic Immunity, Continues Breaking the Law by Granting Patents the EU and EPC Forbade

    The EPO shows how immunity leads to crimes being committed with total impunity; at this point the EPO's immunity must be removed and judges should be permitted to do their job, which is enforcing the law



  21. EPO is Trying to 'Force-Feed' Europe Some Fake Patents by Hijacking Courts

    Having granted a lot of dubious European Patents (to maintain constant growth despite a decreasing number of applications) the EPO seeks to subvert the court system; so far only the constitutions and the laws are being subverted — to the point where these ambitions are collapsing in Europe’s highest courts



  22. If the EPO Plans to Go 'Virtually' Private (Outside Contracting), Then Failing It Would be Deliberate

    Sooner rather than later EPO workers need to entertain the possibility that so-called 'plan Battistelli' is to enrich a bunch of well-connected people rather than improve the Office or its services



  23. Linux Oughtn't Be Just a Brand

    The non-Linux-using Linux Foundation and how it views the Linux project



  24. Software Freedom Eroding in Linux and Nobody Seems to Care or Oppose This

    Linux, the kernel, continues its trajectory or the route towards becoming Open Source Proprietary Software (OSPS)



  25. Guest Post: An Open Letter to Matt Lee Regarding freesw.org

    "I realise you and I probably don't agree on very much. What I think we do agree on is the importance of getting Free Culture and Free Software right."



  26. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, October 10, 2019

    IRC logs for Thursday, October 10, 2019



  27. Links 11/10/2019: Atari VCS Responds, Rock Pi SBC Debut

    Links for the day



  28. Azure Apparently Losing Money and Microsoft Lies to Shareholders, in Effect Breaking the Law

    Decades down the line Microsoft continues to lie about its financial performance, as it did before, according to a former insider



  29. Links 10/10/2019: KDE Applications 19.08.2 and NixOS 19.09

    Links for the day



  30. The EPO is Gradually Being Outsourced to Private, For-Profit, Unaccountable and Notorious Companies

    The EPO is becoming a private enterprise one piece at a time; what's not to like?


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

Recent Posts