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

04.29.18

Patent Maximalists Are Using SAS Institute v Iancu to Distract From Their Epic Defeat in the Vastly More Important Oil States

Posted in America, Courtroom, Deception, Patents at 8:01 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“For a decade, makers of AIDS medicines had rejected the idea of lowering prices in poor countries for fear of eroding profits in rich ones. The position required a balancing act, because the companies had to deflect attacks on the global reach of their patents, which granted exclusive marketing rights for antiretroviral drugs.”Barton Gellman

US flag sketchSummary: As one might expect, law firms don’t want pairs of eyes and attention on Oil States, so they start speaking about a far less critical case — a case that might, under some circumstances, give PTAB even more work

JUST under a decade ago we criticised Florian Müller for all sorts of reasons, half a decade after he had fought software patents. Over the past 3-4 years, owing largely to EPO scandals, Müller and us became amicable again. He’s no longer attacking FOSS like he used to (while Microsoft paid him). He’s back to software development and he’s getting involved in USPTO matters. He wants software patents to go away (virtually all software developers reject software patents).

“Over the past 3-4 years, owing largely to EPO scandals, Müller and us became amicable again. He’s no longer attacking FOSS like he used to (while Microsoft paid him).”“Someone wrote on Twitter that patent holders had something to celebrate yesterday,” he wrote in Twitter a day after Oil States. “Classical spin doctoring?”

Yes.

Both Oil States and SAS Institute v Iancu (formerly SAS Institute v Lee) are about patents. But it’s clear which of the two decisions matters a great deal. We cover patents dozens of times per week and rarely do we even mention SAS Institute v Iancu (it’s about patents but not so important). Müller went on to writing a whole blog post about it: [via]

Someone wrote on Twitter that patent holders had something to celebrate yesterday: After the Supreme Court’s Oil States (7-2 confirming constitutionality of PTAB inter partes review) and SAS (5-4 holding that PTAB must render decision on all challenged patent claims after granting review), patent holders were allegedly in a stronger position than before, which–as the same tweeter (I forgot the name) noted–is rarely the case when the Supreme Court overrules the Federal Circuit as it did in SAS.

Classical spin doctoring? A comparison of the number of amicus briefs filed shows where most of the attention was. 54 briefs in Oil States vs. only [one] in SAS. If patent holders at large had cared a lot about SAS, more of them than just the Intellectual Property Owners Association (amicus brief, PDF) would have chimed in. However, many of those who’d have preferred to have done away with PTAB IPR in the first place presumably welcome anything that adversely affects PTAB’s operational efficiency–and even when (as is the case here) it’s not easy to predict the fallout, someone who hates PTAB probably just thinks it can hardly get worse from that particular vantage point.

Exactly!

“Both Oil States and SAS Institute v Iancu (formerly SAS Institute v Lee) are about patents. But it’s clear which of the two decisions matters a great deal.”Over the past few days we’ve waited patiently and collected examples of this diversion tactic.

At Patently-O, for example, Dennis Crouch wrote that Justice “Ginsberg, joined by the other three most liberal justices, calls Gorsach’s [sic] reading “wooden” and lacking of any true understanding or indication of congressional intent” (Gorsuch is as “wooden” as the Kochs and their think tanks which he cited).

Here’s more:

Simplifying petitions decisions: The decision here should simplify the petition institution decisions. Following SAS, the question should simply be whether there is at least 1 challenged claim where the petitioner has presented a “reasonable likelihood” of prevailing on the merits. 35 U.S.C. 314(a).

[...]

Writing in dissent, Justice Ginsberg, joined by the other three most liberal justices, calls Gorsach’s [sic] reading “wooden” and lacking of any true understanding or indication of congressional intent: “Court’s opinion offers no persuasive answer to that question, and no cause to believe Congress wanted the Board to spend its time so uselessly.”

Over a year ago Patently-O worked ‘overtime’ trying to slow things down at PTAB. It was like a contingency (in case they cannot undermine or altogether eliminate PTAB). Watchtroll, piggbacking SAS Institute v Iancu, is also hoping to slow things down. Its headline from 4 days ago was self explanatory.

This wasn’t enough for this patent-maximising pair. They carried on and on.

“We predict that tomorrow, right after the webinar with David Ruschke, the patent microcosm will try as hard as it can to leave Oil States behind, burying it while shouting from the rooftops about SAS Institute v Iancu.”Saurabh Vishnubhakat, an Associate Professor at the Texas A&M University School of Law and the Texas A&M College of Engineering,‏ wrote in Twitter: “After 7-2 finding in #OilStates of #PTAB constitutionality, #SCOTUS 5-4 in #SASInstitute rejected partial institution. Court denied @USPTO call for deference at #Chevron step 1: relevant text unambiguous. Oil States: https://bit.ly/2Hq9OSJ SAS Institute: https://bit.ly/2Hq9OSJ”

Guess which decision Saurabh Vishnubhakat decided to write about for Patently-O… not Oil States. Not convenient? Dennis Crouch published for him a long article titled “First Steps After SAS Institute” and to quote:

The incentive of the Patent Office, meanwhile, is likely to deny institution relatively more often in the wake of SAS Institute, at least initially. One reason is that the Court’s opinion has no effect on the PTAB’s ability to grant full institutions. Panels could already do so and still can. What panels now confront is the prospect of fully instituting even where some arguments in the petition may lack merit. Rather than dispense with these potentially unavailing arguments at the institution phase, where estoppel would at least arguably not attach, the only alternative left is to try all of these arguments fully, with all the Chenery obligations that such a choice entails, and the specter of estoppel looming larger than before for the petitioner. This represents a potentially significant increase in the PTAB’s workload and is not something that the Patent Office is likely to undertake lightly.

Another reason why the agency’s incentives now point more, if not entirely, toward denial is the workaround proposed in Justice Ginsburg’s dissent. Only a paragraph in length, it expressly contemplates precisely this sort of full denial of a petition, except that the PTAB in its decision to deny institution would also identify which claims were worthy of review and which claims were not. Petitioners could then refile in light of this guidance. Justice Ginsburg described this exercise as the PTAB spending its time “uselessly”—in contrast simply to allowing partial institutions and reaching the same point without the added step of refiling.

But this is actually a reasonable idea. Just as petitioners themselves now have greater incentive than before to focus their challenges in order to make full institution more tenable than full denial, the PTAB can also play a useful complementary role by explaining in its denials of institution just what it finds worthy or unworthy of review, and why. By channeling petitioners to “file new or amended petitions shorn of challenges the Board finds unworthy,” the PTAB may create additional work in the short run. Over time, however, its guidance would conserve the agency’s adjudicatory resources by discouraging the overinclusive petitioning that partial institution fostered because the PTAB had a way to manage its workload without having to discipline extravagant petitioners.

This is no longer the case, and the PTAB’s own workload is now more closely tied to the burdens that it allows petitioners to visit upon patent owners. The opinion of the Court purported not to take a stance on policy arguments about efficiency, directing such arguments to Congress. Nevertheless, the decision in SAS Institute may produce efficiency gains after all.

It’s a very long article overall. Nothing from him (that we can see) about Oil States. Except a “tweet”…

Ellie Mertens, who works for/serves the US patent microcosm, wrote the following:

The US Supreme Court has decided in SAS Institute v Iancu that the PTAB must review all or none of the challenged claims. Observers say the PTAB petitioners could react to the ruling in a number of ways, and it “may increase the number of issues that bubble up to the Federal Circuit”

The US Supreme Court has decided in SAS Institute v Iancu that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) must review all or none of the challenged claims.

To be fair, Mertens did write about Oil States as well (we shall cover that separately).

Dennis Crouch, writing again a few days later, resorted to jingoistic patent propaganda from Ross and Iancu. Here they go again:

In a joint statement, Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross and Andrei Iancu, Undersecretary of Commerce and USPTO Director, have released a joint statement following upon President Trump’s statements yesterday that the Administration is “tak[ing] steps to strengthen our patent system.” In particular, President Trump focused on increasing “reliability and enforceability of patents.” Following today, Iancu and Ross have announced that “The Department of Commerce and the United States Patent and Trademark Office will be taking steps to further strengthen our patent system” and that our intellectual property rights must be “strong, reliable and predictable.”

Crouch also wrote about “USPTO Guidance for Dealing with SAS Decision” as follows:

The US Supreme Court recently decided SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu (U.S. Apr. 24, 2018), holding that USPTO has been improperly issuing “partial-institution” and holding AIA trials on only a subset of challenged claims. The USPTO has now issued a one-page introductory guidance memorandum for procedure moving forward.

Here’s the original statement. There’s a webinar about it tomorrow at 1PM Eastern Time:

The PTAB is holding a “Chat with the Chief” webinar on Monday, April 30 from noon to 1 pm ET about the Supreme Court’s decisions on Oil States and SAS. Chief Judge David Ruschke will discuss the decisions, their impacts on AIA trial proceedings, and answer questions.

The webinar is free and open to everyone to attend. Webinar access information is provided on the left side under Event Summary.

Yes, PTAB’s Chief Judge David Ruschke will be there too.

Regarding the guidance, there has been a lot of coverage about it (almost more than about Oil States). Michael Loney, editor of a patent maximalists’ site, wrote this summary:

Guidance includes stipulating that for pending trials in which a panel has instituted only on some challenges in the petition, the panel may issue an order supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition

Guidance in relation to SAS Institute v Iancu was also mentioned by IP Watch, which has not been doing much ‘watching’ lately (they gave the platform to maximalists). To quote:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidance on changes to post-grant proceedings following the 24 April decision by the US Supreme Court in the SAS Institute v Iancu case. The Court ruled that the USPTO must decide the patentability of each claim that is challenged in petitions for inter partes review.

Guidance as such was also noted by Watchtoll, which got all worked up over Oil States and preferred to deflect: (deflection over to SAS Institute v Iancu)

On Thursday, April 26th, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued new guidance regarding the effects of the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgment in SAS Institute Inc. on America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings held before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Along with the new guidance, the USPTO also announced a webinar with PTAB Chief Judge David Ruschke taking place next Monday to further discuss the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the trial activities conducted at the PTAB.

SAS Institute v Iancu coverage by Kevin E. Noonan, another patent maximalist:

Well, that didn’t take long. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued Guidance today, just two days after the Supreme Court decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu came down, regarding how the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will apply the Court’s mandate in that inter partes review (IPR) decisions are all or nothing with respect to challenged claims (“Guidance on the Impact of SAS on AIA Trial Proceedings”).

The Guidance is simple: going forward (i.e., for all pending and future-filed petitions), the Board will institute on all challenged claims so long as the petitioner has shown a reasonable likelihood of invalidating at least one of the claims. For cases where the Board has engaged the parties in partial institution proceedings, the Board “may” issue an order “supplementing the institution decision to institute on all challenges raised in the petition.” In such cases the Board also has discretion to take action “permitting additional time, briefing, discovery, and/or oral argument.” Examples included in the Guidance include granting additional time for the Patent Owner Response or, if the statutory twelve-month time is close to expiry, taking advantage of the additional six months provided by the statute for extraordinary cases. The Guidance stresses however that such decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Patent Docs covered not only SAS Institute v Iancu; as we’ll show in our next post, they also mentioned Oil States, but these two decisions were treated almost as equal. They’re not. To repeat what Müller said, we have “54 briefs in Oil States vs. only [one] in SAS” (which is quite revealing).

We predict that tomorrow, right after the webinar with David Ruschke, the patent microcosm will try as hard as it can to leave Oil States behind, burying it while shouting from the rooftops about SAS Institute v Iancu. Did Iancu even want to ‘win’ this case (unlike Lee)?

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