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

03.04.18

The Attacks on PTAB’s Legitimacy Are Slowing Down and § 101 Continues to be Applied by PTAB

Posted in America, Patents at 4:09 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents are being invalidated and even examiners (with feedback from PTAB) increasingly reject these before grant

A reject bin

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) maintains its good work which reforms the Office and elevates the patent bar (narrowing scope); the USPTO is expected to see a decrease in patents this year, not just a decrease in the number of patent lawsuits

THE USPTO‘s PTAB needs no introduction here. We already wrote hundreds of articles about it and we commended its work, which helps raise the bar for patent examiners and thus improves patent quality in the US, disqualifies frivolous patent lawsuits before they go too far (because of profound financial damage to innocent parties that are merely being accused or threatened), gives businesses some peace of mind, and gives law firms something better to aim for (other than getting a gazillion patents on everything under the Sun).

PTAB is loved. It’s loved by those who actually create something.

PTAB is only (as far as we can see) hated by people who create nothing but lawsuits.

This post will focus on the latter group (the ‘haters’) because we feel the need to correct/rebut them.

Last week there was a decision in Knowles and it was discussed as follows: “Knowles Elecs v Cirrus Logic, FedCir 3/1/18; 2-1 majority affirms PTAB rejections in reexam for anticipation and lack of WD for proposed cls. Panel splits over impact of Circuit’s 2011 MEMS decision construing same term in same patent in ITC proceeding. Newman dissents on this.”

Newman dissents on a lot of stuff (we don’t want to bash her over it) and Dennis Crouch uses her dissent for his typical PTAB bashing because he’s not happy with the outcome (the PDF of this precedential decision was mentioned here). This is what Crouch wrote about PTAB:

The problem, for Judge Newman, is that a decision from the PTAB’s controlling court should control the actions of the PTAB and limit its power. For its part, the PTAB generally refuses to be bound by prior claim construction decisions by District Courts, but this is the first case where the PTAB has disregarded a prior interpretation by the Federal Circuit.

Although I began with Judge Newman’s opinion. Her opinion was in dissent, the Majority (Judges Wallach and Chen) avoided the question of whether the PTAB’s must follow Federal Circuit claim construction decisions. Rather, the majority held that the PTAB construction is in “accord with the definitions adopted in Mems Tech.” Based upon this claim construction, the majority agreed that the claims were anticipated by the proffered prior art.

Why did he begin with Newman’s opinion? That sort of bias is revealing, is it not?

Maybe the patent microcosm can just pretend to itself that only one judge exists and counts. The judge whom they like. The one they always/usually agree with. But that’s not how this court works. Notice the rather misleading/unhelpful title as well: “PTAB Reconstruing Claims: Estoppel?”

Poor outline of the case at hand, no? Maybe if Newman had Mexican heritage, Crouch would use another inane cartoon (or meme) of hers.

Moving on a bit, PTAB was also mentioned by Gaston Kroub of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC. It’s not a coincidence that many proponents of software patents are also proponents of patent trolls, FRAND, SEP, the UPC etc. They are also opponents of patent quality control (something like PTAB). That’s just what patent maximalists are like. “It is well-known that patents are more valuable in certain industries than others,” Kroub said. “Whether it is because the eligibility of certain technology for patenting is in constant question — software, meet Alice — or because of the presence of standard-essential patents with their resultant FRAND obligations, in certain industries any given patent may not be very valuable. In contrast, industries like pharmaceuticals and medical devices, where a small set of patents can cover a blockbuster drug or device, are often thought of as having valuable patents. But recent developments have helped call this orthodoxy into question, particularly with respect to drug patents.”

Scroll down a bit for the anti-PTAB screed, for example: “Merck was not the only pharmaceutical giant to face an adverse decision recently. In another long-anticipated ruling, the PTAB found that Allergan’s attempt to end run the IPR process by assigning patents covering its blockbuster eye treatment Restasis to an Indian tribe would not result in the termination of the nearly-final IPRs. While the specifics of the decision are interesting, and raise important questions about the PTAB’s authority to decide issues other than patent validity, there is no doubt that the result is a blow to Allergan’s attempts to shield its Restasis patents from an ultimate invalidity finding — especially since the district court presiding over the corresponding ANDA case involving those patents had already found them invalid. Whether the generic challenger is heartened enough by this latest ruling to launch at-risk (pending Allergan’s inevitable Federal Circuit appeals) is an open question. What is clear, however, is that drug companies like Allergan are willing to try everything to keep their valuable patents alive. Despite those efforts, even the most creative (desperate?) strategies will not go far when the quality of the underlying patents are not commensurate with their purported value.”

We wrote about that case earlier today. PTAB receives plenty of hate for simply doing the right thing.

Doing the right thing seems to require courage these days because a whole bunch of patent law firms then resort to paid-for ‘articles’, racist memes, attacks on judges, endless efforts to cause scandals, and sometimes abusive letters. We’ve documented these over the years.

Crouch, a PTAB-hostile writer, is among those who are stressed to see patent sanity prevailing these days. See this new post which is at least suitably titled “Electronic Medical Records: Not Eligible” (obviously).

It’s about PTAB and an examiner:

IMO’s CEO Frank Naeymi-Rad along with 11 others are listed as inventors of the company’s pending Application No. 13/622,934 – recently rejected on eligibility grounds. The claims are directed to a software system for “implementing a controlled vocabulary” within a longitudinal medical record. The examiner finally rejected all 14 claims for on eligibility grounds (withdrawing the obviousness rejection) — concluding that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “providing healthcare by generating and processing medical records.”

On appeal, the PTAB sided with the examiner – holding that – at a high level of abstraction, the claims “can be characterized as collecting, storing, and organizing … and transmitting information.” Although the examiner acknowledges that the claims are novel and non-obvious, the PTAB still found no inventive concept.

As we shall show later, examiners now growingly reject software patents and PTAB almost always affirms their decision (to reject). It’s an encouraging new trend. It’s not entirely new, but it’s gaining momentum.

It’s worth noting that attacks on PTAB are running dry. We track these things pretty carefully and closely. All in all, the anti-PTAB lobbying sites have slowed down lately. These anti-PTAB tweets, personal attacks, blog posts and articles may have halved in number (compared to months ago). Watchtroll, which used to attack PTAB almost every day (sometimes more than once a day), has lots of totally off-topic stuff. Watchtroll was bashing PTAB using the recent Arendi case (that was two days ago), but those sorts of articles come out about twice a week now, not twice a day like they used to.

Anticipat, which was trying to sell products/services by badmouthing PTAB, is also changing its tone somewhat. It’s softening.

Christopher Francis, writing for a law firm that loves bashing PTAB, is not happy about IPRs improving patent quality, but he too takes note of examiners’ change of habit:

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board applied In Re: Smith Int’l to limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language in Ex parte David Ben Yair (Appeal 2017-002190, decided Jan. 10, 2018). In this case, the claim is directed toward a composite suit including “an inner suit” and “an outer suit,” and the prior art discloses a single article of clothing including an outer layer and an inner layer. The PTAB agreed with the appellant that, based on the specification of the appealed application, the claims required two pieces of clothing. Based on this interpretation the PTAB reversed the prior art rejection.

[...]

This type of analysis by the PTAB begs the question of whether examiners are now required to identify support in the specification for their interpretation of claim terms. In any case, this decision is an example of a broad application of In re: Smith Int’l that could be useful when working with the examiners on BRI issues and when appealing based on an Examiner’s broad claim interpretation.

PTAB haters are still out there, ranting in ALL CAPS because PTAB cites § 101, but those are a lot more extreme than any of the above. They are connected to literal patent trolls. They are so ‘fringe’ that they even deny that professors are professors (when they do not agree with them). The trolls they are connected to deny that I have a Ph.D. and yet it’s them who most habitually accuse PTAB of not caring about facts. The sheer hypocrisy.

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 Linux Foundation is Not About Linux

    Linux Foundation (LF) objectives/missions do not resemble what the Open Source Development Labs, Inc. (OSDL) was founded to accomplish; this puts at grave threat the very raison d'être of both GNU and Linux



  2. Guest Post: The Linux Foundation Needs to Define “Support”

    Part of an ongoing series of articles we do about the Linux Foundation



  3. Dimitris Xenos on Unconstitutional Supranational Arrangements for Patent Law: Leaving Out the Elected Legislators and the People’s Participatory Rights

    A new paper from a British scholar proves to be timely because of the EPO's violations of the European Patent Convention (EPC) and failed push to force-feed Europe with the unconstitutional Unified Patent Court (UPC)



  4. The Campinos-Battistelli Strategy is Working: Patent Trolls Are Coming to Europe!

    It cannot be any less obvious that today's European Patent Organisation (and Office) works for patent offices and for those who pay these patent offices (law firms) rather than for science, technology and the public (including the European public)



  5. Links 25/3/2019: Linux 5.1 RC2, Nano 4.0, PyPy 7.1

    Links for the day



  6. Links 24/3/2019: Microsoft Does Not Change; Lots of FOSS Leftovers

    Links for the day



  7. Just Published: Irrational Ignorance at the Patent Office

    Iancu and his fellow Trump-appointed "swamp" at the USPTO are urged to consult academics rather than law firms in order to improve patent quality in the United States



  8. Microsoft Paid the Open Source Initiative. Now (a Year Later) Microsoft is in the Board of the Open Source Initiative.

    The progression of Microsoft entryism in FOSS-centric institutions (while buying key "assets" such as GitHub) isn't indicative of FOSS "winning" but of FOSS being infiltrated (to be undermined)



  9. Jim Zemlin's Linux Foundation Still Does Not Care About Linux Desktops

    We are saddened to see that the largest body associated with Linux (the kernel and more) is not really eager to see GNU/Linux success; it's mostly concerned about its bottom line (about $100,000,000 per annum)



  10. Links 23/3/2019: Falkon 3.1.0 and Tails 3.13.1

    Links for the day



  11. The Unified Patent Court is Dead, But Doubts Remain Over the EPO's Appeal Boards' Ability to Rule Independently Against Patents on Nature and Code

    Patents used to cover physical inventions (such as engines); nowadays this just isn't the case anymore and judges who can clarify these questions lack the freedom to think outside the box (and disobey patent maximalists' dogma)



  12. Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

    There's no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there's nothing even remotely like that



  13. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  14. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  15. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  16. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  17. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  18. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  19. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  20. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  21. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  22. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  23. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  24. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  25. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  26. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  27. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  28. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  29. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  30. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    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