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

04.21.18

As USPTO Director, Andrei Iancu Gives Three Months for Public Comments on 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Software Patenting Impacted)

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 10:36 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

No guarantee that anything will change, but the patent microcosm enthusiastically promotes this perception

Pulling a Berkheimer

Summary: Weeks after starting his job as head of the US patent office, to our regret but not to our surprise, Iancu asks whether to limit examiners’ ability to reject abstract patent applications citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (relates to Alice and Mayo)

A COUPLE of days ago we carefully took note of sites that had been attacking Michelle Lee (USPTO Director and reformer); they are now pressuring the new Director, Andrei Iancu. Will they get their way at the end? Can they squash Alice and Mayo somehow? Will Iancu let them do it?

“The patent extremists, we might as well add, are nowadays naming and ranking patent examiners by how subservient they are to patent maximalists.”Sites like Watchtoll are keeping the old obsession with him, pushing him towards limiting/removing PTAB, reintroducing software patents etc.

Steve Brachmann (Watchtroll) wrote about him again a couple of days ago, to be followed by another piece about the person who chose him before Trump nominated him. To quote:

Over the last several weeks those in the industry supportive of strong patent rights have been treated to speeches from USPTO Director Andrei Iancu saying all the right things about the patent system. but it is hard to imagine anything more significant than Secretary Ross simply showing up at an event like this.

Citing decisions like Berkheimer, a couple of days ago Gene Quinn (Watchtroll) mentioned potential changes to Section 101 and said: “The deadline for receiving public comments will be 120 days from official publication in the Federal Register, which will take place on Friday, April 20, 2018.”

It didn’t take long for patent maximalists to get all jolly; Iancu is being pressured to be a stooge of patent extremists, who are now boosting Watchtroll in joy and glee.

“So basically, nothing has been finalised.”Even IBM’s patent chief is boosting Watchtroll on this, which says a lot about IBM. It’s a rather trollish and malicious company nowadays. It lobbies for software patents like no other company (not even Microsoft).

The patent extremists, we might as well add, are nowadays naming and ranking patent examiners by how subservient they are to patent maximalists. This is a sort of witch-hunt-type trick. Anticipat did it and now Watchtroll joins the ‘fun’. It’s getting pretty ugly.

For a more balanced coverage, see what IP Watch wrote yesterday:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office today issued a Federal Register notice providing guidance to patent examiners on patent subject matter. The office is seeking public comments on the new guidance.

Here’s the original wording (complete): “The USPTO has issued today a Federal Register notice and memorandum to the patent examining corps in response to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018), pertaining to subject matter eligibility. This new guidance pertains to the second step of the Alice-Mayo framework for determining subject matter eligibility, and is focused on how examiners are to analyze and document a conclusion that a claim clement is “well-understood, routine, conventional” during the patent examination process. The USPTO is requesting public comment on the new guidance. This memorandum was issued now in light of the recent decision from the Court of Appeals. The USPTO is determined to continue its mission to provide clear and predictable patent rights in accordance with this rapidly evolving area of the law, and to that end, may issue further guidance in the future.”

So basically, nothing has been finalised. It is a proposal regarding a potentially new guidance (to be in effect). Watchtroll, like the original, names Berkheimer, as it last did yesterday:

As for the memo itself, it indicates that while Berkheimer does not change the basic subject matter eligibility framework set forth in MPEP § 2106, the case does provide clarification for the Alice Step 2B inquiry in that whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination. “[A]n examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry…[and] such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination…This memorandum further clarifies that the analysis as to whether an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use is the same as the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as to whether an element is so well-known that it need not be described in detail in the patent specification [emphasis original].”

Richard Lloyd (IAM think tank) wrote: “During his first oversight hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu came under growing pressure to issue guidance on how recent changes in jurisprudence on patent eligible subject matter should be applied. Senator Kamala Harris, a recent appointee to the committee, quizzed Iancu on the uncertainty around section 101, particularly as it relates to artificial intelligence. This is an area of growing interest to the tech giants of her home state of California, and Harris asked the new PTO if he could commit to issuing new guidance within 90 days.”

“We expect technology companies (other than IBM) to oppose changes and in fact Josh Landau (CCIA), who represents many such companies, has already responded.”There was also this tweet about it, which said: “Yesterday in the Senate, USPTO director Iancu committed to reporting back on possible changes to 101 guidelines within 90 days, so today’s news is something of a surprise. But eligibility is an issue Iancu has focused on strongly since taking the reins.”

We expect technology companies (other than IBM) to oppose changes and in fact Josh Landau (CCIA), who represents many such companies, has already responded. Two days ago he wrote a rebuttal to the claims made in the oversight hearing:

On Wednesday, April 18, new USPTO Director Andrei Iancu appeared for his first oversight hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Director was more open with the Committee compared to his confirmation process, leading to some interesting discussions.

Algorithms Are Already Patentable

A number of questions focused on the issue of patentable subject matter, also referred to as § 101. As noted by a number of Senators, artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and big data are huge areas of innovation right now. Google’s AI systems (including DeepMind and TensorFlow) have enabled key advances in many areas of machine learning. NVIDIA’s advanced GPU hardware enables faster, more efficient AI technology, and they have their own AI systems that run on top of their hardware. Intel is providing neural network hardware that can learn on its own. These technologies underlie recent advances in areas as diverse as natural language translation, self-driving cars, and medical diagnostics.

Unfortunately, there appeared to be an impression that algorithms aren’t patentable, and Director Iancu could have done more to clarify that that’s anything but the truth. Of course you can patent an algorithm. In fact, claiming a specific algorithm for solving a problem in your patent is one of the most effective ways to make sure that your invention passes § 101; that was the exact rationale in the McRO case. Essentially, you can patent “a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology,” but you can’t patent “a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery.” A specific algorithm that solves a technical problem is patentable. But what isn’t patentable is claiming “using artificial intelligence to solve a problem”, any more than “using computers to solve a problem” was found patentable in Alice.

And that shouldn’t concern anyone interested in the future of AI. Alice hasn’t hurt the computer software industry—on the contrary, R&D spending on software and the internet has skyrocketed post-Alice. And the inability to patent “solve it with AI” isn’t going to harm investment in AI.

Real advances in AI are receiving patents every day. [1][2][3][4]. Utility patent 10,000,000 will likely issue this summer, and given the pace of innovation seen every day, there’s a good chance that patent will relate to AI. But what isn’t—and shouldn’t be—patentable is the sort of “do it with AI” patents that can block off whole areas of research and development, the sorts of patents that are favorites of patent trolls. And that’s exactly the situation we have today.

What will happen after 3 months is not known to us (not yet), but we expect groups like the EFF, Engine, CCIA, HTIA and others to remain involved and push back against patent maximalists. We’ll mostly be vigilant observers and report on what is happening, e.g. public submission of comments.

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 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  3. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  4. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  5. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  6. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  7. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  8. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  9. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  10. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  11. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB



  12. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement is Paralysed, So Team UPC is Twisting Old News

    Paralysis of the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) means that people are completely forgetting about its very existence; those standing to benefit from it (patent litigation firms) are therefore recycling and distorting old news



  13. Patents as Profiteering Opportunities for Law Firms Rather Than Drivers of Innovation for Productive Companies

    A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)



  14. Links 9/8/2018: Mesa 18.2 RC2, Cockpit 175, WPA-2 Hash Cracking

    Links for the day



  15. Patent Maximalists -- Not Reformers -- Are the Biggest Threat to the Viability of the Patent System and Innovation

    Those who strive to infinitely expand patent scope are rendering the patent system obsolete and completely losing sight of the very purpose of the patent system, whose sanity US courts and lawmakers gradually restore (one ruling and one bill at a time)



  16. WeMove.EU Tackles Low Patent Quality at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    The breadth of European Patents, which now cover even nature itself, worries public interest groups; Team UPC, however, wants patent scope to expand further and António Campinos has expressed his intention to further increase the number of grants



  17. Links 8/8/2018: KDE Neon for Testing, New LibreOffice Release, Dart 2.0

    Links for the day



  18. Links 7/8/2018: TCP Vulnerability in Linux, Speck Crypto Code Candidate for Removal

    Links for the day



  19. PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

    Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents



  20. Supreme Court and Federal Circuit Precedents Might Make District Courts (Outside Texas) More Sceptical of Patents

    As patent lawsuits scatter around the United States (not as concentrated around Texas anymore) there's a real chance of turnaround in terms of outcomes; we look at some recent cases



  21. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is Cleaning Up the United States' Patent System

    The highest patent court (bar the US Supreme Court, SCOTUS) is rejecting a lot of patents, not only software patents; this is long overdue and is bad news to patent lawyers (not to companies that actually create and sell things)



  22. Racing to the Bottom, the António Campinos-Led EPO Continues to Promote Software Patents, Just Like China

    The EPO is being transformed into 'SIPO Europe', a dangerous gamble which would leave European firms more susceptible to frivolous litigation and generally reduce the value of previously-much-coveted European Patents



  23. Arista Shows How ITC Injustice (Embargo Before Facts Are Even Known) Harms Smaller Businesses, Helps Monopolists

    Arista Networks Inc. (Arista) has just given up, but only after years of legal bullying from Cisco, which imposed embargoes using questionable patents that should never have been granted by the USPTO



  24. Links 6/8/2018: Linux 4.18 RC8, Pinguy OS 18.04.1, Netrunner Rolling 2018.08, Thunderbird 60

    Links for the day



  25. Playing With Words and Buzzwords in a Landscape of Software Patents Rejections

    The efforts to get patents on software granted nowadays increasingly rely on synonyms and vague/nebulous buzzwords, such as "AI"; examiners ought to be aware of this because PTAB and courts would almost definitely reject all of these patents



  26. Jury Trials and Apple's Latest Bitter Affair With Patents

    Almost 150 million dollars to WiLAN, Canada's largest patent troll, owing to another jury trial in California



  27. Agenda and Lies From Watchtroll Make It Into the Bill of Rohrabacher, the “Inventor Protection Act”

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is being demonised using falsehoods or patently false numbers, which are pushed into various news feeds by the anti-PTAB lobby (representing the interests of patent trolls and aggressors as well as their lawyers)



  28. Attributing Negligible Differences to Whatever Suits the Loudest Opponents of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has limited/restricted patent grants based on 35 U.S.C. § 101, adding to a number of factors which contribute to statistics in litigation and appeals; but the anti-PTAB lobby wants us to believe that there's a resurgence for patent maximalism (the very opposite of what's really happening)



  29. The Anti-PTAB Lobby Still Predicting Doom and Gloom, as Usual, Despite PTAB's Year-Over-Year Growth

    A gradual increase in the number of inter partes reviews (IPRs) in spite of fee hikes; the anti-PTAB lobby is still latching onto anything it can in search of scandals, trying to discourage filers



  30. Understanding of Microsoft’s Patent Strategy Requires Scrutiny of the Patent Trolls It's Connected to

    As Microsoft's strategy appears to be arming patent trolls and then selling 'protection' from them we must still keep abreast of the actions of Microsoft-connected trolls and especially their lawsuits (because these are visible)


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