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. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  2. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  3. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  4. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  5. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  6. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  7. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  8. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  9. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  10. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  11. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  12. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  13. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?



  14. Links 10/11/2018: Mesa 18.3 RC2, ‘Linux on DeX’ Beta and Windows Breaking Itself Again

    Links for the day



  15. Unified Patents Takes Aim at Velos Media SEPs, Passed From Patent Aggressor Qualcomm

    The latest endeavour from Unified Patents takes aim at notorious standard-essential patents (SEPs), which are not compatible with Free/Open Source software and are typically invalid as per 35 U.S.C. § 101 as well



  16. Stacked Panels of Front Groups Against PTAB and in Favour of Patents on Life/Nature

    So-called 'panels' where the opposition is occluded or excluded try to sell the impression that greatness comes from patent maximalism (overpatenting) rather than restriction based on merit and rational scope



  17. With Patent Trolls Like Finjan and Blackbird Tech out There, Microsoft in OIN Does Not Mean Safety

    With many patent trolls out there (Microsoft’s Intellectual Ventures alone has thousands of them) it’s not at all clear how Microsoft can honestly claim to have reached a “truce”; OIN deals with issues which last manifested/publicly revealed themselves a decade ago (Microsoft suing directly, not by proxy)



  18. Links 9/11/2018: Qt 5.12.0 Beta 4, Ubuntu On Samsung Galaxy Devices, Rust 1.30.1

    Links for the day



  19. Microsoft is Supporting Patent Trolls, Still. New Leadership at USPTO Gives Room for Concern.

    New statements from Microsoft's management (Andersen) serve to show that Microsoft hasn't really changed; it's just trying to sell "Azure IP Advantage", hoping that enough patent trolls with their dubious software patents will blackmail GNU/Linux users into adopting Azure for 'protection'



  20. EPO Stacking up Buzzwords (4IR, AI, Now SDV) to Compel Examiners to Grant Patents on Algorithms

    Instead of looking for ways to better obey the law and comply with the EPC, President Campinos is creating new loopholes, further lowering patent quality in order to fake 'growth'



  21. EPO Needs to Publicly Apologise for Granting Bogus/Fake Patents to Aggressive Companies Like Monsanto (Now Bayer)

    Admission of patents being granted in error and/or against public interest may be a step towards acceptance that there is a problem; EPO management, however, keeps quiet about it



  22. The Death of the UPC is Only a “Tragedy” for Patent Trolls and Their Facilitators

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) will likely never exist (ever); it's not hard to see who stands to lose from this demise of the UPC (before it even started)



  23. The António Campinos Private/Secret Meeting With ILO Officials a Slap Across the Face to Employees of the European Patent Office

    European Patent Office injustice prevails; the new President, António Campinos, is merely trying to cover up the abuses of the person who lobbied to put him in charge



  24. Links 7/11/2018: Unreal Engine 4.21 Released, Cinnamon 4.0 Preview, Rcpp 1.0.0

    Links for the day



  25. Techrights Turns 12, Upcoming Server Migration

    As we approach our 25,000th blog post we also prepare for migration to a new dedicated server



  26. US Litigation Office: Former Judge From the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Leaves the Office as Another Litigator Enters as New Deputy Director

    Nathan Kelley is leaving and Laura Peter is joining the USPTO; That means one patent judge less and a new Deputy Director who used to work for what some call a "patent troll"



  27. European Software Patents: From AI to Blockchains and Now... Self-Driving Vehicles

    The leadership which comes after Battistelli is even worse when it comes to patent scope and patent quality; it seems to mimic China's low standards, which include patents on algorithms



  28. Guy Ryder (ILO) Should Meet Staff Representatives, Not Corrupt Team Battistelli

    The perception of ILO complicity is being reinforced in light of new revelations about private meetings that exclude actual staff representatives (such as SUEPO, whose officials are themselves the subject of ILO appeals)



  29. Links 7/11/2018: Fifteen Years of Fedora, ReactOS 0.4.10

    Links for the day



  30. Low Patent Quality and Patent Maximalism in General Are Bankrupting Real Businesses for the Sake/Gain of Litigation Firms and Trolls (Their Clients)

    Coming to grips with the fact that productive industries are being crushed for the sake of lawyers, whose firms often act as a front for exploitative patent trolls and monopolies


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