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

03.25.18

Where Opposition to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB, AIA) Has Come From Over the Past Week If Not Year

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 11:18 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Follow the drops of oil

Cato Institute and Koch Brothers Reach Agreement - The New York Times
Reference: Cato Institute and Koch Brothers Reach Agreement – The New York Times

Summary: The push against PTAB, a relatively short time before the much-anticipated Oil States decision, appears to have lost momentum; but those who persist are almost always linked to patent maximalism

QUALITY assurance is essential when it comes to patents. That is the whole essence of patent examination — something which EPO management conveniently overlooks when it turns the EPO into another INPI. The USPTO, by contrast, enjoys scrutiny from PTAB, which basically reassesses granted patents and sometimes patent applications too. PTAB helps assure that people who were granted patents have confidence in enforceability (or lack thereof). Spurious expenses, notably court/lawyers’ fees, are being spared. Sounds good, no? Well, not to patent maximalists. The lawyers want a lot of fights because they profit from these fights.

“Spurious expenses, notably court/lawyers’ fees, are being spared. Sounds good, no? Well, not to patent maximalists.”This post glues together recent developments related to PTAB, which we expect to be further cemented into the system when SCOTUS rules on Oil States (possibly weeks if not a few months from now).

Several days ago Professor Rantanen (University of Iowa) spoke of a “symposium, Administering Patent Law, [which] is co-sponsored by the Iowa Law Review and the center I direct, the Iowa Innovation, Business and Law Center.”

“The concept of post-grant patent challenges isn’t a novel one, nor should it be controversial.”Rantanen also mentioned Melissa Wasserman's joint paper on why examiners at the USPTO grant low-quality patents which then help patent trolls. More recently she co-authored a paper with Christopher J. Walker. It was about PTAB and it has just been reposted under a slightly different title (“Situating PTAB Adjudication Within the New World of Agency Adjudication”) at Patently-O, again by Jason Rantanen, who wrote three posts there (in just one day) mostly for self-promotional purposes. One of those revealed slight bias — albeit the sort of bias one might expect from Patently-O, which keeps bashing PTAB for at least a year now (we watch these trends closely as we strive to understand and track the money flows).

“Suffice to say, just because someone questions the legitimacy of a patent does not mean that the patent is instantaneously illegitimate. There’s a process for that and it is improving over time.”The concept of post-grant patent challenges isn’t a novel one, nor should it be controversial. The EPO had practiced it for decades (although years ago, under Battistelli, this concept came under attack in defiance of the EPC). The other day we saw this article about US patent number 9,738,929. Arguing over whether the USPTO granted a bogus patent (which happens a lot unfortunately, due to patent maximalists who ruined the system), here is the outcome boasted about in a press release:

ONT had sought to dismiss Pacific Biosciences’ complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,738,929 by alleging that the patent’s claims recite ineligible subject matter. A hearing on the matter was held on February 27, 2018 and the ruling by Judge Stark was issued on March 22, 2018. In its ruling, the Court disagreed with ONT’s contentions and also took note of the inconsistent statements made by ONT in front of the U.S. International Trade Commission and in prosecuting ONT’s own, later-filed patent applications.

Suffice to say, just because someone questions the legitimacy of a patent does not mean that the patent is instantaneously illegitimate. There’s a process for that and it is improving over time. PTAB has in fact expanded panels to actually improve confidence and oversight when it comes to patent assessment, but Watchtroll is such a dishonest site that it now claims the very opposite, attributing that to extremists like itself/himself (who profits from such lies). Some say that we should just ignore Watchtroll, but it’s important to see what prominent anti-PTAB sites are saying and occasionally debunk their arguments.

Watch what a Koch-funded think tanker, Adam Mosoff, said a few days ago. Mosoff, who links to Cato (Koch), tweeted: “GREAT READ in @RegulationMag by Professor Jonathan Barnett: How evidence shows that stable & effective property rights in patents are important & why this matters for US innovation economy in 21st century object.cato.org/sites/cato.org… #OilStates #PatentsMatter @CatoInstitute”

“Kochs like to piggyback a pseudo-libertarian sentiment to engender and spread hatred for any sort of government regulation.”It’s not hard to imagine who signal-boosted this. Not only those making a career out of lying for billionaires but also the patent maximalists, such as Ania Jedrusik, who wrote: “There’s no firm basis to assert that the #patent system is regularly issuing low-quality patents or that technology markets are stuck in a morass of patent claims that will frustrate #innovation…”

Kochs like to piggyback a pseudo-libertarian sentiment to engender and spread hatred for any sort of government regulation. This isn’t new. It’s a well-recognised pattern of their lobbying fronts, including Cato. Their meddling in Oil States isn’t surprising either. They have a lot of money at stake.

“In the vast majority of cases PTAB actually (re)affirms examiners’ rejections based on (citing) Section 101.”Thankfully, some of the above is being challenged. FFII Sweden’s Bosson responded with: “What would that benchmark look like? We know from history that regions outside patent systems have been prosperous. East vs West coast US for instance. Now we have Alice vs pre-Alice.”

FFII’s André Rebentisch‏ then said: “The litmus test is: does it involve software? I haven’t seen a non-trivial patent in the field.”

“Exactly,” Bosson replied. “My experience is that pretty much all software parents are abstract methods on math discoveries or information re-organization embedded in patent-babble complexity. Have helped kill one recently – at high cost.”

Don’t tell that to patent lawyers though; they hardly know what software is and how it works, having never written even a simple computer program. Watchtroll attempted to claim that he did, but when asked to name it he ran away and blocked me, hoping to spare himself this embarrassment. He’s no programmer, he fails to explain what computer programs are, yet he constantly promotes software patents. It’s all about money to him.

“Patent maximalists such as IAM and Patently-O are obviously not happy, but what can they do short of attacking judges’ credibility (something that they already do on occasions)?”An online friend of his keeps complaining about rejection of such patents. This one too is no programmer, yet always happy to promote software patents and block those who practice software (like myself). He wrote about a “50 Page Rejection of a Neology Patent after IPR–at least no 101 rejection…” (it’s Section 101 which scares them the most; we’ll cover that separately)

This patent maximalist is citing this PDF [PDF] from the PTAB-hostile Anticipat, selectively choosing a case where, according to him, “PTAB Reversed Examiner’s [Section] 101 Rejection of Claims in SAP Patent Application; Some Good Arguments Presented by SAP Counsel…”

In the vast majority of cases PTAB actually (re)affirms examiners’ rejections based on (citing) Section 101. The same goes for CAFC cases that look into PTAB rejections based on Section 101.

Patently-O has long attempted to change the status quo on IPRs, CBM and so on.”Patent maximalists such as IAM and Patently-O are obviously not happy, but what can they do short of attacking judges’ credibility (something that they already do on occasions)? IAM posted this sponsored rant about CAFC and Patently-O wrote about a case where “the district court followed the PTAB and ruled that the claims were invalid as indefinite.”

Sometimes this PTAB-bashing blog shows (for a change) courts and PTAB in agreement. Most of the time, however, it chooses to highlight dissent. This one is about a laughable patent. Under “AIA Trials” it says that “the Federal Circuit agreed that Sarif’s claim construction position of no-means-plus-function was “well supported” – despite ultimately losing the case.”

On another day it wrote about CBM (Covered Business Method) in relation to AIA. To quote some background:

In the America Invents Act (AIA), Congress created two primary new forms of challenging issued patents in an administrative trial setting before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The more popular form is Inter Partes Review while Post Grant Reviews have seen less interest. The comparative popularity appears to stem primarily from the fact that IPRs can be used to challenge any issued patent — including pre-AIA patents and patents issued years-ago. PGRs, on the other hand has two important timing limitations: (1) PGRs are only applicable to post-AIA patents (effective priority date > March 2013); and (2) a PGR petition must be filed within 9-months after the patent grant. That said, IPRs have a comparative downside: While a PGR may challenge patent claims on any patentability ground (except best mode), IPRs are limited only to anticipation and obviousness challenges based upon prior patents and published prior art.

The Covered Business Method Review (CBM) program is added as a layer atop IPRs and PGRs. CBMs can only be used to challenge patents directed to financial, non-technological business methods. However, like PGRs, those CBM patents can be challenged on any ground (including eligibility, enablement, and indefiniteness). Further, like IPRs, CBM petitions can challenge any patent regardless of its filing and issuance dates.

Patently-O has long attempted to change the status quo on IPRs, CBM and so on. Patently-O is all about patent maximalism, i.e. more software patents, patents on business methods etc. It yearns for the old days of patent trolls’ freedom to sue and blackmail everyone.

“It’s actually the Berkheimer nonsense which is “making a comeback,” having been misinterpreted and misused by the patent microcosm for about a month now (we wrote nearly a dozen articles and rebuttals about it).”“Business methods making comeback on appeal at the Board,” Anticipat exclaimed some days ago, “Citing Berkheimer PTAB panel holds Examiner must show evidence…”

It’s actually the Berkheimer nonsense which is “making a comeback,” having been misinterpreted and misused by the patent microcosm for about a month now (we wrote neatly a dozen articles and rebuttals about it). Anticipat writes:

We have previously reported on the very low reversal rates of abstract idea rejection within tech center 3600, home of business method art. Indeed, over the past few months, the reversal rate has been about 12%, as shown on the Anticipat Research database. But the Federal Circuit has recently pushed the Alice test closer toward patentees, and the Board appears to be following their lead. This is shown in a pair of recently-decided appeals involving business method applications

[...]

The PTAB will continue to side with Examiners in affirming many abstract idea rejections of business method applications. But the recent reversals show that a compelling argument lies in the novel arrangement of claim elements. This is especially compelling if the Examiner has not established on the record that these elements are conventional or routine.

So that last paragraph almost directly contradicts the headline and, much as we expected, Berkheimer has made virtually no difference.

But why let facts of even statistics get in the way of ‘good’ agenda? Anticipat goes further with some revealing numbers. Notice the part about Section 101:

We recently reported that the top patent firms (by registered practitioner as featured on a Patentlyo post) pursue ex parte appeals very differently. This, despite apparent equal knowledge of the benefits of pursuing an appeal to further prosecution. While this finding is interesting, pursuing an appeal and winning on appeal are two different things. Here we report on the differences in appeal outcomes along the three firms Finnegan, Fish & Richardson, and Knobbe Martens.

As brief background, we have found that average reversal rates among the various grounds of rejection to be quite stable. In a recent post, we reported that across the entire USPTO, Section 101 has about a 20% reversal rate on appeal, Sections 102 and 112 hover at about 50%, and Section 103 is around 33%. To look at these firms’ outcomes, we used Anticipat’s Research database and Practitioner Analytics.

Got that? Section 101 reversals are at a mere “1 in 5″. So why even bother?

“PTAB actively enforces Section 101 and there are rarely exceptions to that.”The other day a patent maximalist noted that “PTAB Affirmed Examiner’s 101 Rejection for MasterCard Claims for Making a Sale/Payment with a Mobile Device,” citing a new PDF from Anticipat. This is quite frankly the usual; to suggest that there’s a point trying to work around the law is to basically mislead clients. PTAB actively enforces Section 101 and there are rarely exceptions to that. We’ll say more about Section 101 in later posts, especially misuse of Berkheimer as precedent.

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 23/10/2018: Mesa 18.3 Planned, RISC OS Adopts Apache Licence, Mozilla Firefox 63.0 Available

    Links for the day



  2. Microsoft's Patent Troll Intellectual Ventures Still Suing Microsoft's Rivals, Microsoft Gags Its Staff Regarding Patent Matters

    Microsoft says it's pursuing "truce"; the patent trolls it has created and backed (Bill Gates still backs them at a personal capacity) feel differently



  3. The EPO Under António Campinos Has Opened More Doors to Software Patents and Only Litigators Are Happy

    António Campinos continues Battistelli's tradition of shredding the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC); it's all about generating as much assertion (e.g. litigation, shakedown) activity as possible, serving to bring Europe's productive industries to a halt



  4. German Court on UPC Constitutional Complaint: “No Oral Hearing is Currently Scheduled. A Decision Date is Not Foreseeable at Present.”

    More bad news for Team UPC as there's no sign of Germany signing/ratifying the UPCA and none of the underlying issues (noted in the complaint) have been addressed at all



  5. Links 22/10/2018: New Kernel Release and Linus Torvalds is Back in Charge

    Links for the day



  6. Lack of Patent Quality Means Lack of Patent Validity and Lack of Legal Certainty

    35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) -- like the European Patent Convention (EPC) on the Grant of European Patents -- stresses patent quality and scope; will patent offices get things right before it's too late or too expensive to undo?



  7. Data Engine Technologies (DET) Just One Among Many Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls That Pick on Microsoft's Biggest Competitors

    Lawyers' articles/blog posts continue to obscure the fact that Data Engine Technologies is merely a satellite or unit (one among many) of patent trolling giant Acacia Research Corp., connected to Microsoft and sporting a long history of lawsuits against GNU/Linux



  8. Alice/Mayo and Hatch-Influenced US Patent Office

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seems to be serving those who pay the most to define the scope or limits of patenting; this means that even nature and life are being 'privatised' (or turned into someone's "intellectual" property)



  9. Funded by the Public to Prey on the Public: The Absurdity of Patent Sales and 'Enforcement' by Government

    Government or US Government-funded entities are looking to tax private companies using patents that were actually funded by the public; in practice this helps private firms or insiders (individuals) personally gain from something that the public subsidised and should thus be in the public domain



  10. Lockpath Patents Demonstrate That the US Patent Office -- Unlike US Courts -- Keeps Ignoring 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice

    35 U.S.C. § 101 isn’t being entirely followed by examiners of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); in fact, evidence suggests that mathematics are still becoming monopolies of private firms — something which should never happen



  11. The Eastern District of Texas and Its Patent Trolls Affinity Not a Solved Issue

    The American patent system continues to distribute monopolies on algorithms and some of these cause litigation to reach courts that are notorious for intolerance of 35 U.S.C. § 101, resulting in unnecessary payments to lawyers and patent trolls



  12. More 'Blockchain' Nonsense in Pursuit of Bogus, Nonsensical Software Patents

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is still granting abstract software patents because words like "blockchain" get mentioned in the applications; companies that do this hope to shield themselves from disruptive technology and possibly facilitate future patent blackmail



  13. A Warning About MPEG-G, the Latest Software Patents Trap That Threatens Innovation Everywhere

    Combining patents on software and on life, MPEG-G assembles a malicious pool with malignant ramifications for bioinformatics



  14. MIT and the Prior Art Archive Perpetuate Existing Problems

    Large companies with many tens of thousands of patents (each) would have us believe that broadening access/reach of prior art (e.g. to patent examiners) would solve the issues; This may very well work for these large companies, but it overlooks the broader picture



  15. Links 20/10/2018: Mesa 18.2.3 Released, FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 1

    Links for the day



  16. Unified Patents Demolishes Some More Notorious Patent Trolls and Offers Bounties to Take Down More of Them

    Even though the new management of the US patent office treats patent trolls as a non-issue, groups that represent technology firms work hard to improve things (except for the litigation zealots)



  17. The Identity Crisis of the European Patent Office, Wrongly Believing It Exists to Serve Lawyers and Patent Trolls Outside Europe

    The European Patent Office doesn’t even feel like it’s European anymore; it’s just an international patent office that happens to be based (primarily) in Munich; insiders and outsiders alike need to ask themselves what these ‘European’ officials (employing firms outside Europe) have turned the Office into



  18. Links 19/10/2018: OpenBSD 6.4 and OpenSSH 7.9 Released

    Links for the day



  19. Ingve Björn Stjerna Has Just Warned That If Team UPC and the European Patent Office Rigged the Proceedings of the German Constitutional Court, Consequences Would be Significant

    The EPO is back to mentioning the Unified Patent Court and it keeps making it abundantly clear that it is only working for the litigation 'industry' rather than for science and technology (or "innovation" as they like to euphemise it)



  20. Links 18/10/2018: New Ubuntu and Postgres

    Links for the day



  21. It's Almost 2019 and Team UPC is Still Pretending Unitary Patent (UPC) Exists, Merely Waiting for Britain to Join

    Refusing to accept that the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) has reached its death or is at a dead end, UPC proponents — i.e. lawyers looking to profit from frivolous litigation — resort to outright lies and gymnastics in logic/intellectual gymnastics



  22. IAM and IP Kat Are Still Megaphones of Battistelli and His Agenda

    IAM reaffirms its commitment to corrupt Battistelli and IP Kat maintains its stance, which is basically not caring at all about EPO corruption (to the point of actively deleting blog comments that mention such corruption, i.e. 'sanitising' facts)



  23. The EPO Under António Campinos Relaxes the Rules on Software Patenting and the Litigation 'Industry' Loves That

    EPO management, which is nontechnical, found new terms by which to refer to software patents -- terms that even the marketing departments can endorse (having propped them up); they just call it all AI, augmented intelligence and so on



  24. Links 17/10/2018: Elementary OS 5.0 “Juno” Released, MongoDB’s Server Side Public Licence

    Links for the day



  25. Improving US Patent Quality Through Reassessments of Patents and Courts' Transparency

    Transparency in US courts and more public participation in the patent process (examination, litigation etc.) would help demonstrate that many patents are being granted — and sometimes asserted — that are totally bunk, bogus, fake



  26. Ask OIN How It Intends to Deal With Microsoft Proxies Such as Patent Trolls

    OIN continues to miss the key point (or intentionally avoid speaking about it); Microsoft is still selling 'protection' from the very same patent trolls that it is funding, arming, and sometimes even instructing (who to pass patents to and sue)



  27. Links 1610/2018: Linux 4.19 RC8, Xfce Screensaver 0.1.0 Released

    Links for the day



  28. Judge-Bashing Tactics, Undermining PTAB, and Iancu's Warpath for the Litigation and Insurance 'Industries'

    Many inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leverage 35 U.S.C. § 101 against software patents; instead of putting an end to such patents Director Iancu decides to just serve the 'industry' he came from (a meta-industry where his firm had worked for Donald Trump)



  29. 'Cloud', 'AI' and Other Buzzwords as Excuses for Granting Fake Patents on Software

    With resurgence of rather meaningless terms like so-called 'clouds' (servers/hosting) and 'AI' (typically anything in code which does something clever, including management of patents) the debate is being shifted away from 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101); but courts would still see past such façade



  30. Corporate Media's Failure to Cover Patents Properly and Our New Hosting Woes

    A status update about EPO affairs and our Web host's plan to shut down (as a whole) very soon, leaving us orphaned or having to pay heavy bills


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