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. 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



  2. 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



  3. 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



  4. 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)



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

    Links for the day



  6. 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)



  7. 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)



  8. 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



  9. 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



  10. 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



  11. 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



  12. 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



  13. “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



  14. 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



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

    Links for the day



  16. 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



  17. 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



  18. 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



  19. 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



  20. 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)?



  21. 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



  22. 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



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day



  25. 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)



  26. '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



  27. 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



  28. 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



  29. 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



  30. Asking the USPTO to Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 101 is Like Asking Pentagon Officials to Pursue Real, Persistent Peace

    Some profit from selling weapons, whereas others profit from patent grants and litigation; what's really needed right now is patent sanity and adherence to the public interest as well as the law itself, e.g. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions


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