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 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  2. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  3. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  4. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  5. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  6. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  8. 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)



  9. 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



  10. 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)



  11. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  12. 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



  13. 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



  14. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  16. 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



  17. 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



  18. 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?



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

    Links for the day



  20. 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



  21. 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



  22. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  24. 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'



  25. 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'



  26. 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



  27. 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)



  28. 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



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

    Links for the day



  30. Techrights Turns 12, Upcoming Server Migration

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


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