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

04.15.18

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is Ending Software Patents One Patent at a Time

Posted in America, Patents at 1:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Software patents now in a deadlock

A command line

Summary: At an accelerating pace and with growing determination, PTAB (part of AIA) crushes patent trolls and software patents; the statistics and latest stories speak for themselves

THE USPTO, owing to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), improves patent quality, but patent maximalists aren’t happy. To them, patent quality is a threat, not a goal. Patent Docs, a site of patent maximalists which we mentioned in our previous post, has just promoted this event (‘webinar’) which explores “the AIA’s impact on an inventorship determination?”

What we’re expecting to happen there is based on who attends and speaks; it’s an event of patent maximalists.

One patent maximalist, writing in his blog yesterday, showed patent backlog decreasing as well as (apparently) the number of applications and patents too. Some sources say that this year will see a turnaround in the sense that the number of patents granted will have declined. What’s not declining is post-grant reassessments and invalidations.

According to Docket Navigator, “411 petitions were filed in the first quarter, up on 373 petitions in the fourth quarter of 2017,” so PTAB rises still, smashing bogus patents. As Managing IP put it on Thursday:

Managing IP analyses Docket Navigator data on PTAB petitions filed in the first quarter of 2018 to reveal the most active entities and law firms

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filing for the first quarter arrested a downward trend. Some 411 petitions were filed in the first quarter, up on 373 petitions in the fourth quarter of 2017 and 393 in the third quarter….

Very good. PTAB is about cracking down on patents rather than granting more and more of them (irrespective of merit). The more of PTAB, the better patent quality will become.

The patent reform (AIA) made programmers a lot happier and capable of going on with a freedom to operate (as in develop), not to litigate or be sued.

“Let’s debunk myths,” HTIA wrote some days ago. “Patent reform has not harmed innovation. The 300 U.S. companies who have invested the most in R&D have increased R&D spending by 44% since 2012.”

This links to their press release from Dec 14th (2017). They’re also linking to an article from January, adding: “If you think your business is too big or too small or too off the radar to fall prey to a patent troll, think again. Your business can be a target — & the damage spreads far beyond the office of your general counsel.”

HTIA is backed by technology companies both large and small. Not law firms; HTIA is like a lobby against these patent maximalists.

AIA alone did not fix things, but conjoined with Alice and IPRs it became a software patents-smashing machine. We love it! The patent maximalists hate it and they have set up lobbying groups against it. Some even try to create PTAB-bashing entities like Anticipat. In its latest post it admits that about 90% of the time IPR (patent challenge) appeals will fail and thus rubbish abstract patents. These will remain rubbished even upon appeal, so why bother? To quote:

As seen from Anticipat’s daily recap emails, last month the PTAB reversed a slew of abstract idea rejections. As already discussed in our blog post, several of these reversals related to business method applications. Using Anticipat’s Research database to look even beyond last month, we see interesting results relating to trends of business method appeals outcomes.

The term “business method” has been broadly defined as “a method of operating any aspect of an economic enterprise”. Tech center 3600 includes broad categories of business methods. For example, three sets of art unit groups are listed below.

[...]

For the past year, these abstract idea rejections for business method applications have been consistently reversed at about 10%. This is a very low reversal rate compared with all grounds of rejection. But as applicants choose to appeal rejections of their business method applications, even if the reversal rate stays low, it still means that a large number of such rejections will get reversed. That is, a 10% reversal rate of 120 applications still yields 12 reversals even if it took a lot of applications to get there.

Business method applications are taken into account above; but Alice goes further than this and impacts software patents, too. Don’t believe the spin about software patents making a comeback. There’s absolutely no such comeback. Peter Leung, writing in Wall Street media (Bloomberg), becomes a megaphone of the patent microcosm’s spin to that effect; he’s just name-dropping Berkheimer and Aatrix (or 'pulling a Berkheimer'), as if these mean much for CAFC and PTAB (old and forgotten).

Quoting Leung:

A set of recent decisions by the nation’s patent appeals court may make it more difficult for defendants to score quick victories in infringement cases.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has rejected several trial court rulings disposing of cases in their early stages, criticizing lower courts for not doing enough to analyze relevant factual disputes.

Those decisions are warning shots to trial courts that the lower courts shouldn’t gloss over factual disagreements when considering whether a patent covers eligible subject matter. Trial courts may become reluctant to hand defendants early victories that allow them to avoid lengthy, costly litigation.

These defendants are victims a lot of the time; it’s not even about whether they infringe or not but about whether the claimant has a bogus patent which should never have been granted. The patent office has a responsibility to clean up the mess it created.

Patent maximalists like Mr. Gross continue with their anti-Alice/PTAB rants. “Inconsistent PTAB §101 rulings,” he alleges. “SAME applicant (Visa) found eligible by 1 panel bc “claims as a whole is directed to an improved encryption device” e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrieveP… but NOT by different panel: e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrieveP… bc “computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity”…”

As if no court ever changed its mind? Ever? Based on new evidence or different grounds?

It’s worth noting that PTAB still stops a lot of software patent trolls, such as those that Mr. Gross habitually promotes and writes for. The notorious patent troll Personal Audio, for example, is not quite dead yet. But its patents may be, thanks to PTAB. Unified Patents’ Robert Jain wrote about what happened 4 days ago:

On April 11, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 9,280,886 owned and asserted by Wireless Monitoring Systems, LLC, an NPE controlled by Bradley D. Liddle (an individual connected to Personal Audio and several other patent assertion entities). The ’886 patent, directed to circuit monitoring devices (such as those employed in motion detectors, smoke detectors and the like), has been asserted in multiple litigations against such companies as AT&T, Comcast, ADT, Frontpoint Security, CenturyLink, Charter Communications.

At Patent Docs, Andrew Williams mentioned Personal Audio, LLC v Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) — a very famous case where the PTAB disarmed a troll. Williams talks about Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v Pharmacosmos A/S and takes note of the decision:

Which parties to an IPR proceeding have standing to either appeal or participate in an appeal from an adverse final written decision by the Board? The Federal Circuit had previously held that a petitioner that did not otherwise have Article III standing could not appeal an adverse decision (Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc.), but that a successful petitioner was “not constitutionally excluded from appearing in court to defend” a decision (Personal Audio, LLC v. Electronic Frontier Foundation). Today, in Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pharmacosmos A/S, the Federal Circuit answered in the negative the question whether a petitioner otherwise without standing could cross-appeal a final written decision in which some of the claims were determined to be patentable. In a two-page order, the Court stated that “[b]ecause Pharmacosmos has not established an injury fact sufficient to confer Article III standing,” it was dismissing the case. However, because the order is nonprecedential, and more importantly because there was no discussion or analysis as to why Pharmacosmos lacked standing, it is unclear what the broader implications of this case will be. Nevertheless, by looking at the underlying briefing and oral argument, we might be able to glean some information about the contours of what is required to find petitioner standing for IPR proceedings.

So not much can be learned from it and it’s nonprecedential, too.

Going back to Unified Patents, another patent troll, IP Edge, is hiding behind proxies like Kaldren and blackmails a lot of companies. PTAB to the rescue? It seems so:

On April 11, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 6,820,807 owned and asserted by Kaldren, LLC, an IP Edge subsidiary and well known NPE. The ’807 patent, directed to formatting digital data into an encoded pattern (such as a QR code), has been asserted against 39 different companies since only March 2017 including such companies as JP Morgan, Snap, HSBC, General Mills, J.D. Power and Associates, Allstate, and Blue Cross Blue Shield.

It’s a software patent. It seems like the patent holder, a troll, has targeted too many angry firms and the punishment will be invalidation of the patent. Such is the post-AIA reality. Software patents, especially if asserted against anyone (mere demands/threats, not just lawsuits), will almost always perish.

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 22/7/2018: Neptune 5.4, NetBSD 8.0

    Links for the day



  2. The EPO (European Patent Office) Under António Campinos is Just Another Battistelli EPO; Still UPC and Software Patents Lobbying

    Campinos has done pretty much nothing but a single blog post since taking Office; it makes one wonder what he's doing all day and whether he ever intends to tackle all the abuses that compelled the Council to replace Battistelli



  3. Cisco v Arista Networks is a Stain on the Reputation of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and It's Beginning to Recognise This

    Cisco is leveraging software patents which PTAB deemed to be invalid against a much smaller firm (revenue ~30 times smaller), demanding an embargo and bypassing the ordinary routes of justice by turning to the ITC



  4. Openet Has Been Intimidated by Amdocs Using Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit

    Amdocs is still engaging in legal intimidation and litigious bullying against its much smaller rivals/competitors; Openet is the latest reminder of it, having paid an undisclosed amount of money to end the dispute



  5. Federal Circuit Judges Moore, Dyk and Reyna Tell Allergan That It is Not Above the Law

    Allergan and a Native American tribe have lost their ridiculous case; after swapping tens of millions of dollars in pursuit of immunity for patents they've lost again (in what's likely their last resort/appeal); expect the patent microcosm to attempt to distract from it (like they did Oil States)



  6. Links 20/7/2018: MusicBrainz is Back, Microsoft Pushing .NET Through Canonical

    Links for the day



  7. Some US Patents' Quality is So Low That There's a Garden Clearance/Fire Sale

    Rather than shoot worthless patents into orbit where they belong the Allied Security Trust (AST), collector of dubious patents, will try to sell them to gullible opportunists and patent trolls (even if the said patents would likely perish in courts)



  8. When Amplifying the Message of 'Global Innovation Index 2018' IP Watch Sounds Like WIPO and IP Watchdog (Watchtroll)

    In addition to senatorial efforts and misleading debates about patents, we now contend with something called “Global Innovation Index 2018," whose purpose appears to be similar to the debunked Chamber of Commerce's rankings (quantifying everything in terms of patents)



  9. Erosion of Patent Justice in Europe With Kangaroo Courts and Low-Quality European Patents

    The problematic combination of plaintiff-friendly courts (favouring the accuser, just like in Eastern Texas) and low-quality patents that should never have been granted



  10. Mafia Tactics in Team UPC and Battistelli's Circle

    Mafia-like behaviour at the EPO and the team responsible for the Unified Patent Court (UPC); appointments of loyal friends and family members have become common (nepotism and exchange of favours), as have threats made towards critics, authorities, and the press



  11. Australia Says No to Software Patents

    Rokt is now fighting the Australian patent office over its decision to reject software patents; Shelston IP, an Australian patent law firm (originally from Melbourne), already meddles a great deal in such policies/decisions, hoping to overturn them



  12. Links 19/7/2018: Krita 4.1.1, Qt Creator 4.7.0, and Microsoft-Led Lobby Against Android in EU

    Links for the day



  13. IAM is Pushing SEPs/FRAND Agenda for Patent Trolls and Monopolists That Fund IAM

    The front group of patent trolls, IAM, sets up an echo chamber-type event, preceded by all the usual pro-FRAND propaganda



  14. “Trade Secrets” Litigation Rising in the Wake of TC Heartland, Alice, Oil States and Other Patent-Minimising Decisions

    Litigation strategies are evolving in the wake of top-level decisions that rule out software patents, restrict venue shifting, and facilitate invalidation of patents even outside the courtroom



  15. The EPO -- Like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent System -- is an Untenable Mess

    The António Campinos-led EPO, nearly three weeks under his leadership, still fails to commit to justice (court rulings not obeyed), undo union-busting efforts and assure independence of judges; this, among other factors, is why the Office/Organisation and the UPC it wants to manage appear more or less doomed



  16. Links 18/7/2018: System76's Manufacturing Facility, Microsoft-Led Lobby for Antitrust Against Android

    Links for the day



  17. What Patent Lawyers Aren't Saying: Most Patent Litigation Has Become Too Risky to be Worth It

    The lawyers' key to the castle is lost or misplaced; they can't quite find/obtain leverage in courts, but they don't want their clients to know that



  18. Software Patents Royalty (Tax) Campaign by IBM, a Serial Patent Bully, and the EPO's Participation in All This

    The agenda of US-based patent maximalists, including patent trolls and notorious bullies from the United States, is still being served by the 'European' Patent Office, which has already outsourced some of its work (e.g. translations, PR, surveillance) to the US



  19. The European Council Needs to Check Battistelli's Back Room Deals/Back Door/Backchannel With Respect to Christian Archambeau

    Worries persist that Archambeau is about to become an unworthy beneficiary (nepotism) after a Battistelli setup that put Campinos in power, supported by the Belgian delegation which is connected to Archambeau, a national/citizen of Belgium



  20. PTAB and § 101 (Section 101) Have Locked the Patent Parasites Out of the Patent System

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) have contributed a great deal to patent quality and have reduced the number of frivolous patent lawsuits; this means that firms which profit from patent applications and litigation hate it with a passion and still lobby to weaken if not scuttle PTAB



  21. Patents on Computer Software and Plants in the United States Indicative of Systemic Error

    The never-ending expansion of patent scope has meant that patent law firms generally got their way at the patent office; can the courts react fast enough (before confidence in patents and/or public support for patents is altogether shattered)?



  22. Yesterday's Misleading News From Team UPC and Its Aspiring Management of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) enthusiasts — i.e. those looking to financially gain from it — continue to wrestle with logic, manipulate words and misrepresent the law; yesterday we saw many law firms trying to make it sound as though the UPC is coming to the UK even though this isn’t possible and UPC as a whole is likely already dead



  23. Time for the European Commission to Investigate EPO Corruption Because It May be Partly or Indirectly Connected to EU-IPO, an EU Agency

    The passage of the top role at the EU-IPO from António Campinos to Christian Archambeau would damage confidence in the moral integrity of the European Council; back room deals are alleged to have occurred, implicating corrupt Battistelli



  24. Links 17/7/2018: Catfish 1.4.6 Released, ReactOS 0.4.9, Red Hat's GPL Compliance Group Grows

    Links for the day



  25. Links 16/7/2018: Linux 4.18 RC5, Latte Dock v0.8, Windows Back Doors Resurface

    Links for the day



  26. Alliance for US Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) Misleads the US Government, Pretending to Speak for Startups While Spreading Lies for the Patent Microcosm

    In the United States, which nowadays strives to raise the patent bar, the House Small Business Committee heard from technology firms but it also heard from some questionable front groups which claim to support "startups" and "jobs" (but in reality support just patents on the face of it)



  27. 'Blockchain', 'Cloud' and Whatever Else Gets Exploited to Work Around 35 U.S.C. § 101 (or the EPC) and Patent Algorithms/Software

    Looking for a quick buck or some low-quality patents (which courts would almost certainly reject), opportunists carry on with their gold rush, aided by buzzwords and hype over pretty meaningless things



  28. PTAB Defended by the EFF, the R Street Institute and CCIA as the Number of Petitions (IPRs) Continues to Grow

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) come to the rescue when patently-bogus patents are used, covering totally abstract concepts (like software patents do); IPRs continue to increase in number and opponents of PTAB, who conveniently cherry-pick Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, can't quite stop that



  29. IAM/Joff Wild May Have Become a de Facto Media Partner of the Patent Troll iPEL

    Invitation to trolls in China, courtesy of the patent trolls' lobby called "IAM"; this shows no signs of stopping and has become rather blatant



  30. Cautionary Tale: ILO Administrative Tribunal Cases (Appeals) 'Intercepted' Under António Campinos

    The ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT) is advertised by the EPO's management as access to justice, but it's still being undermined quite severely to the detriment of aggrieved staff


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