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

03.12.18

Patent Academics and CAFC Make a Living Out of Patents, But Both Must Begrudgingly Learn to Accept That Patents Went Too Far

Posted in America, Patents at 12:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Many of the Rader era CAFC/Federal Circuit decisions (almost all) were overturned by the US Supreme Court

Federal Circuit judges

Summary: A look at academic pundits’ views on the patent system of the United States and where the Federal Circuit (a high patent court) stands on these matters after the US Supreme Court (highest possible court) lashed out at many of its decisions, especially those from the disgraced Rader years

THE USPTO alone is dealing with billions of dollars each year. Those who can participate in the ‘patent game’ at a large scale are large corporations. The same is true universally. It’s not the system of a sole inventor like Tesla but of a businessman like Edison. Lots of money in circulation in the patent ‘industry’.

It has been rather disappointing to see ‘Establishment’ academics playing along in all this. I’m not a fan of particular people using the title Professor to implicitly assert that they’re uninterested or/and impartial observers whose views are objective and motivations are purely “scholarly”. They too can be lobbyists sometimes. They have vested interests and ideologies. I do have those ideologies too. So does everybody else. Absolute objectiveness rarely exists, except in few disciplines (e.g. laws of nature, not laws of states).

Some hours ago Patenty-O (a patent maximalists’ blog) published this piece about the doctrine of equivalents (DoE) among other matters. Judging by the tone, it sure sounds as though Professor Samuel F. Ernst from Golden Gate University School of Law pressures the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to intervene in CAFC (Federal Circuit) rulings regarding patent scope/maximalism. To quote a portion:

It is now time for the en banc Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court to overrule the erroneous doctrine of literal infringement and revive the reverse doctrine of equivalents. As properly applied, the reverse doctrine of equivalents allows for accused innovations to escape infringement when they are substantially superior, practically and commercially, to the invention claimed by an asserted patent.

[...]

If a proper litigation vehicle is identified, a petition for certiorari arguing for the revival of the reverse doctrine of equivalents may well attract the attention of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has been inclined to review the work of the Federal Circuit in recent years in cases where the Federal Circuit has applied a rigid rule (like the doctrine of literal infringement), given insufficient deference to district court determinations (as occurs when the district court is not permitted to weigh the principle of the asserted patent against the accused substantial innovation), and disregards or cabins Supreme Court precedent (as has been done with Westinghouse v. Boyden)

See what they’re doing here? Crouch et al just can’t help intervening in Supreme Court matters, as they did a lot in Oil States. Crouch alone perhaps wrote a hundred or more posts pertaining to this case directly and indirectly. Dishonesty was abundant as well as the rhetoric/nuances of right-wing libertarians (Conservatives masquerading as “liberals”).

Days prior to this Professor Michael Risch wrote about Section 101 and more so Section 112. He alluded in his post to edge cases/extreme cases such as “violating the laws of thermodynamics.” (or “defy the laws of thermodynamics.”)

To quote some bits:

Those familiar with my work will know that I am a big fan of utility doctrine. I think it is underused and misunderstood. When I teach about operable utility, I use perpetual motion machines as the type of fantastic (and not in a good way) invention that will be rejected by the PTO as inoperable due to violating the laws of thermodynamics.

[...]

I’m sure I had briefly read Newman v. Quigg at some point in the past, and the case is cited as the seminal “no perpetual motion machine” case. Even so, I’m glad I watched the documentary to get a better picture of the times and hooplah that went with this, as well as what became of the man who claimed to defy the laws of thermodynamics.

It’s no secret that Risch is said to support software patents although he maintains that he is “agnostic” on the matter (i.e. passively accepting the status quo). Risch is not exactly a “patent maximalist” — a term he recently used in an E-mail he sent me. Having said that, his discipline (work) depends on the patent system. So do some courts. How about the Federal Circuit, as opposed to the Supreme Court (which deals with a very broad set of subjects)? As Wikipedia puts it right at the start/outset: “The Federal Circuit is particularly known for its decisions on patent law, as it is the only appellate-level court with the jurisdiction to hear patent case appeals.”

Having written a lot about the Federal Circuit for over a decade, we can really see things improving. The latest chief judge is so much better than her predecessors, who were (and still are) patent maximalists that openly support trolls and sometimes engage in misconduct which benefits patent trolls.

Let’s examine some recent news from the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit, according to this, “has affirmed a district court’s rule 12(b)(6)dismissal of a complaint alleging direct patent infringement where the patent owner pled that the defendant at most benefited from the claimed system as a whole…”

This is another rejection (one among many rejections) of patent maximalism. In Exergen Corp. v Kaz USA, as Patently-O noted some days ago, the Federal Circuit ruled in favour of the patent, but this wasn’t abstract, hence more trivial a case.

Patently-O‘s Dennis Crouch commented (a couple of weeks back) on a CAFC decision which does not address scope (and thus isn’t quite relevant to us) and also wrote about Helsinn Healthcare v Teva Pharma (petition later noted elsewhere), which might — just might — reach the Supreme Court:

Prior to the AIA, the On Sale Bar prevented the patenting of inventions that had been on-sale more than one year before the application’s filing date. 35 U.S.C. 102(b). Pre-AIA, on sale activities include non-enabling secret offers to sell the invention (so long as the invention was otherwise ready-for-patenting). Because most companies outsource elements of product development and manufacture — the rule has created potential for trapping the unwary.

As we said before, we’re quite pleased to see how the high courts in the US nowadays deal with patents. They’re more sceptical. The lower (i.e. district) courts gradually adapt, but that takes time.

Docket Navigator recently highlighted Precision Fabrics Group, Inc. v Tietex International, Ltd. when it wrote:

The court granted in part plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude expert testimony premised on a revised construction of the claim term in question.

Such expert testimonies often help highlight what patent examiners overlooked (either intentionally or unintentionally) when choosing to grant a patent that’s presently used aggressively. Such scrutiny is much needed and should be encouraged, not impeded, as we said in our last post. The more scrutiny/challenge (e.g. PTAB), the better the quality of patents and legitimacy of justice-making.

Remember a district court case which was mentioned here earlier (design patents on automobile parts); those were upheld as valid by a district court (report from end of last month). Well, guess what happened in Ottah v Fiat at the Federal Circuit. Patently-O reports:

On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the lower court’s dismissal of Chikezie Ottah’s infringement claim against Fiat, Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford, and other auto manufacturers — holding it not infringed.

[...]

Even after liberally construing the pleadings (for pro se benefit), the court found no plausible claim based upon the patent — as such the dismissal with prejudice was proper.

This is pretty recent (decided March 7th, 2018). We’ve made this local copy of the decision.

No doubt the court and its judges will continue to come under attacks, even racist diatribe (as recently happened).

Watch Camilla Alexandra Hrdy (University of Akron School of Law) suggesting that Trump should write: “IF YOU DON’T HAVE PATENTS, YOU DON’T HAVE A COUNTRY.”

This is starting to sound even more deranged than Trump himself. What are these people on? Patent maximalism is a mental virus, whose threat to the mind is greater in the presence of echo chambers. And when we say “echo chambers” we mean events organised by the likes of IAM, with support from large law firms such as Finnegan.

“Typically,” Finnegan says, “national stage examination of U.S. applications claiming priority to international PCT applications “commences” 30 months from the priority date of the international application. This commencement date is then used to calculate patent term adjustment if appropriate.”

Timing won’t matter though if your patent is not of concrete/real value, e.g. a software patent, and should never be granted anyway.

In summary, things are changing for the better. But law firms and patent-centric scholars worry that it makes them obsolete.

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 21/9/2018: Cockpit 178, Purism 'Dongle'

    Links for the day



  2. Criticism of Unitary Patent (UPC) Agreement Doomed the UPC and Patent Trolls' Plan -- Along With the Litigation Lobby -- for Unified 'Extortion Vector'

    The Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC) was the trolls' weapon against potentially millions of European businesses; but those businesses have woken up to the fact that it was against their interests and European member states such as Spain and Poland now oppose it while Germany halts ratification



  3. It Wasn't Judges With Weapons in Their Office, It Was Benoît Battistelli Who Brought Firearms to the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The EPO scandals deepen in light of a very major scandal which has occupied the French media for a couple of months



  4. Links 20/9/2018: 2018 Linux Audio Miniconference and Blackboard's Openwashing

    Links for the day



  5. Links 19/9/2018: Chromebooks Get More DEBs, LLVM 7.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  6. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  7. Today's European Patent Office (EPO) Works for Large, Foreign Pharmaceutical Companies in Pursuit of Patents on Nature, Life, and Essential/Basic Drugs

    The never-ending insanity which is patents on DNA/genome/genetics and all sorts of basic things that are put together like a recipe in a restaurant; patents are no longer covering actual machinery that accomplishes unique tasks in complicated ways, typically assembled from scratch by humans; some supposed 'inventions' are merely born into existence by the natural splitting of organisms or conception (e.g. pregnancy)



  8. The EPO Has Quit Pretending That It Cares About Patent Quality, All It Cares About is Quantity of Lawsuits

    A new interview with Roberta Romano-Götsch, as well as the EPO's promotion of software patents alongside CIPA (Team UPC), is an indication that the EPO has ceased caring about quality and hardly even pretends to care anymore



  9. Qualcomm's Escalating Patent Wars Have Already Caused Massive Buybacks (Loss of Reserves) and Loss of Massive Clients

    Qualcomm's multi-continental patent battles are an effort to 'shock and awe' everyone into its protection racket; but the unintended effect seems to be a move further and further away from 'Qualcomm territories'



  10. Links 17/9/2018: Torvalds Takes a Break, SQLite 3.25.0 Released

    Links for the day



  11. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Helps Prevent Frivolous Software Patent Lawsuits

    PTAB with its quality-improving inter partes reviews (IPRs) is enraging patent maximalists; but by looking to work around it or weaken it they will simply reduce the confidence associated with US patents



  12. Abstract Patents (Things One Can Do With Pen and Paper, Sometimes an Abacus) Are a Waste of Money as Courts Disregard Them

    A quick roundup of patents and lawsuits at the heart of which there's little or no substance; 35 U.S.C. § 101 renders these moot



  13. “Blockchain” Hype and “FinTech”-Like Buzzwords Usher in Software Patents Everywhere, Even Where Such Patents Are Obviously Bunk

    Not only the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) embraces the "blockchain" hype; business methods and algorithms are being granted patent 'protection' (exclusivity) which would likely be disputed by the courts (if that ever reaches the courts)



  14. Qualcomm's Patent Aggression Threatens Rationality of Patent Scope in Europe and Elsewhere

    Qualcomm's dependence on patent taxes (so-called 'royalties' associated with physical devices which it doesn't even make) highlights the dangers now known; the patent thicket has grown too "thick"



  15. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Are Still Desperate to Crush PTAB in the Courts, Not Just in Congress and the Office

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) improve patent quality and are therefore a threat to those who profit from spurious feuding and litigation; they try anything they can to turn things around



  16. IAM, Watchtroll and the EPO Still Spread the Mentality of Patent Maximalism

    The misguided idea that the objective (overall) should be to grant as many monopolies as possible (to spur a lot of litigation) isn't being challenged in echo chamber 'events', set up and sponsored by think tanks and pressure groups of the litigation 'industry'



  17. Watchtroll and Other Proponents of Patent Trolls Are Trying to Change the Law Outside the Courts in Order to Bypass Patent Justice

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) voids almost every software patent — a reality that even the most zealous patent professionals have come to grips with and their way of tackling this ‘problem’ is legislative, albeit nowhere near successful (so far)



  18. Links 16/9/2018: Windows Plays 'Nice' Again, Elisa Music Player 0.3 Beta and Latte Dock 0.8.1

    Links for the day



  19. Slamming Courts and Judges Won't Help the Patent Maximalists; It Can Only Make Things Worse

    Acorda Therapeutics sees its stock price dropping 25% after finding out that its patent portfolio isn't solid, as affirmed by the Federal Circuitn(CAFC); the only way out of this mess is a pursuit of a vastly improved patent quality, thorough patent examination which then offers legal certainty



  20. Patent Trolls Are Still Active and Microsoft is Closely Connected to Many of Them

    A roundup of patent trolls' actions in the United States; Microsoft is connected to a notably high number of these



  21. Advancements in Automobile Technology Won't be Possible With Patent Maximalism

    Advancements in the development of vehicles are being discouraged by a thicket of patents as dumb (and likely invalid) as claims on algorithms and mere shapes



  22. Battistelli “Has Deeply Hurt the Whole Patent Profession, Examiners as Well as Agents” and Also the Image of France

    A French perspective regarding Battistelli's reign at the EPO, which has not really ended but manifests itself or 'metastasises' through colleagues of Battistelli (whom he chose) and another French President (whom he also chose)



  23. António Campinos Needs to Listen to Doctors Without Borders (MSF) et al to Salvage What's Left of Public Consent for the EPO

    Groups including Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and Médecins du Monde (MdM) have attempted to explain to the EPO, with notoriously French-dominated leadership, that it’s a mistake to work for Gilead at the expense of the public; but António Campinos is just another patent maximalist



  24. The Max Planck Institute's Determination on UPC's (Unitary Patent) Demise is Only “Controversial” in the Eyes of Rabid Members of Team UPC

    Bristows keeps lying like Battistelli; that it calls a new paper "controversial" without providing any evidence of a controversy says a lot about Bristows LLP, both as a firm and the individuals who make up the firm (they would not be honest with their clients, either)



  25. Links 15/9/2018: Wine 3.16, Overwatch's GNU/Linux (Wine) 'Ban', New Fedora 28 Build, and Fedora 29 Beta Delay

    Links for the day



  26. Max Planck Institute Pours More Water on the Dying Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Max Planck Institute gives another sobering reality check for Team UPC to chew on; there's still no sign of any progress whatsoever for the UPC because even Team UPC appears to have given up and moved on



  27. EPO Seals Many Death Sentences With Acceptance of EP 2604620

    Very disappointing news as EP 2604620 withstands scrutiny, assuring that a lot of poor people will not receive much-needed, life-saving treatments



  28. Links 13/9/2018: Compiz Comeback, 'Life is Strange: Before the Storm'

    Links for the day



  29. Now We Have Patents on Rooms. Yes, Rooms!

    The shallow level of what nowadays constitutes "innovation" and merits getting a patent for a couple of decades



  30. EPO Granted a Controversial European Patent (Under Battistelli) Which May Literally Kill a Lot of People

    The EPO (together with CIPA) keeps promoting software patents; patents that are being granted by the EPO literally put lives at risk and have probably already cost a lot of lives


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