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

05.08.18

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Continues to Deny Patents Based on Stricter Standards

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 9:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Justice based on self-reflection should come first (and no presumption of validity for patents, honesty from lawyers)

Man in window

Summary: As patent lawyers resort to further aggression and dirty tricks they risk alienating jurists, who are growingly hostile towards the patent maximalists and are nowadays embracing a more balanced approach towards patents

IT HAS been pretty pleasing to see what happened to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) after Paul Redmond Michel and Mr. "Death Squads" Rader left it. No longer a patent extremists’ court or a patent trolls’ ally, CAFC nowadays instructs the USPTO regarding examination guidelines (which its rulings inspire).

CAFC’s actions upset nobody except a small group of patent extremists, who occasionally bash CAFC judges and demand their firing/resignation. It’s rather appalling to see. They do the same to USPTO officials who back reforms.

One such site, Watchtroll, wrote about an “Israeli pharmaceutical firm” the day before yesterday. It’s going back to court after Justices changed the national position/s on patents. The news is dated two days ago, but it speaks of something which happened more than 2 weeks ago. To quote:

On Thursday, April 20th, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Medinol Ltd. v. Cordis Corporation et. al. which vacated and remanded a lower court’s ruling that claims of patent infringement alleged by Israeli pharmaceutical firm Medinol were barred by the equitable defense of laches. The Federal Circuit’s decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit’s previous precedence on laches as an equitable defense in SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, decided last year. The case was decided by a panel consisting of Circuit Judges Timothy Dyk, Jimmie Reyna and Kara Stoll.

Watchtroll is now back again to 01 Communique Lab, Inc. v Citrix Sys, which it revisited yesterday. This site is typically revisiting only CAFC cases of convenience (to the patent microcosm).

Covering a breach-of-contract case, Patently-O looks at the latest attempt to bring an AIA (patents) case to SCOTUS. “In its new petition for certiorari,” Patently-O wrote, “Alexsam argues that its breach-of-contract case should have never been removed to Federal Court.”

Patently-O has also just published this long post by Dennis Crouch about Energy Heating v Heat On-The-Fly, a case wherein the “Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s holding that Heat On-The-Fly’s U.S. Patent No. 8,171,993 is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.”

Heres’s why:

Inequitable Conduct: In the failure-to-disclose context inequitable conduct requires clear and convincing evidence that “the applicant knew of … the prior commercial sale, knew that it was material, and made a deliberate decision to withhold it.” See Therasense. These issues are determined by the district court judge and given deference on appeal. Thus, an inequitable conduct finding should only be overturned when based upon a misapplication of law or based upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact.

Here, the patentee argued that the prior uses were “experimental” or at least he thought that they were. That argument was rejected since the prior uses included all elements of claim 1; that there were no notebooks or other experiment-like-paraphernalia; and that the uses were done openly without any attempt to hide the system or require confidentiality. (Linking these factors to Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Industries, Inc., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). Those elements were more than enough to overcome the experimental-use-defense.

Watchtroll too has just mentioned courts rendering patents unenforceable due to foul play. Notice the theme? We covered some more examples recently. These are typically CAFC cases and the judges aren’t tolerating patent aggression.

A couple of days ago we wrote about laughable ads from Cislo & Thomas LLP and here they go again with the headline “Federal Circuit Makes It More Difficult To Invalidate Patents Under Alice” (we already debunked these arguments about a dozen times over the past month). To quote Cislo & Thomas LLP:

As many patent attorneys and agents know, the landscape of business methods and software patent eligibility has changed since the 2014 ruling of Alice v. CLS Bank. Alice has made it significantly more difficult to patent software and business methods, but now the Federal Circuit made a ruling that will slow down the process of invalidating patents under Section 101.

The Federal Circuit found that a finding of patent eligibility under Section 101 and the Alice ruling involve “factual issues.” This means that lower district courts will have a more difficult time resolving Section 101 cases at the summary judgment stage because these factual issues are something that require a jury to decide.

Although they aren’t naming the case, they’re ‘pulling a Berkheimer’ — a relatively new trick of patent maximalists looking desperately for light at the end of the CAFC tunnel (sometimes even mocking judges over it, e.g. Judge Reyna).

At no point did CAFC say something against Section 101/Alice; a couple of successive rulings led to this USPTO consultation which was soon forgotten about because of Oil States (only days later).

The matter of fact is, CAFC remains Section 101/Alice-friendly and thus software patents-hostile. As Joseph Herndon reminds us this week, business methods aren’t considered patentable either. The “Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that the claims are patent-ineligible under § 101,” he wrote. Here is the core part:

In an appeal from a rejection in initial examination of appellant Mark Eberra’s patent application, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) determination that the claims are patent-ineligible under § 101.

The patent application is entitled “Business Method for Opening and Operating a National Television Network” with serial number 12/230,058 (“the ’058 application”). The Examiner rejected all claims of the ’058 application as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

The Board initially affirmed the Examiner’s anticipation rejection without reaching the § 101 issue. Then, on rehearing, the Board affirmed the Examiner’s rejection under both § 101 and § 102. Mr. Eberra appealed and represented himself pro se.

So patents on business methods are so very weak that they’re probably not worth pursuing and the same goes for software patents. Except perhaps in the patent trolls’ breeding ground, the Eastern District of Texas (TXED/EDTX). Here’s an update from an TXED patent lawsuit, Salazar v HTC Corporation:

The court granted in part defendant’s motion to strike portions of the report of plaintiff’s technical expert for applying improper legal principles.

Such “improper legal principles” seem to match the theme we’ve been seeing at CAFC lately. Not only do patent lawyers attempt to come up with “scams” (and then SLAPP me for pointing it out) but they cheat in all sorts of other ways. How many judges will it take to signal to them that they’ll be dismissed with prejudice for that? How many rulings will we see along these lines?

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. Language Patent Lawyers Are Using to Warp the Debate and Decrease Public Understanding of Patents

    The patent microcosm, trying to get the public all baffled/confused about the patent system, continues (mis)using words to convey things in misleading ways



  2. USPTO FEES ACT Makes the US Patent Office a Money-Making Machine That Systematically Disregards Patent Quality

    The lingering issues with patent assessment at the US patent office, which unlike US courts isn't quite so impartial an actor (it benefits more from granting than from rejecting)



  3. Guest Post on Ronan Le Gleut and Benalla at the French Senate (in Light of Battistelli's Epic Abuses)

    Thoughts on the possibility that Battistelli will belatedly be held accountable for his abuses, knowing that a senator representing French Citizens residing Abroad comes from the EPO



  4. A Lot of US Patents Are Entirely Bogus, But Apple Was Willing to Pay for Them

    Apple's resistance to Qualcomm's patent aggression was preceded by very heavy ("thermonuclear" by Steve Jobs' description/words) patent wars against Android and even legitimisation of clearly bogus software patents from Amazon



  5. 'Owning' Nature, Thanks to Patent Insanity and People Who Profit From That

    Questionable patents on things that always existed and are merely being explained or reassembled; those sorts of patents typically serve to merely discredit the patent system and courts too increasingly reject such patents (e.g. SCOTUS on Mayo Collaborative Services and Myriad Genetics, Inc.)



  6. Patents Stranger Than Fiction and 'Protection' From Fictional Things

    Fictional things are being treated like "inventions" and insurance companies now look to exploit fear of fictional things (man-made concepts), such as ownership of mere ideas or words



  7. Benoît Battistelli Refuses to Talk to the Media About Bringing Firearms to the EPO

    Benoît Battistelli's highly aggressive approach has attracted the attention of French media; Battistelli has reportedly refused to comment on that matter, knowing that he lacks a defense (same thing happened after he had hauled millions of EPO euros to his other employer)



  8. Patent Law Firms Have Become More Like Marketing Departments With an Aptitude for Buzzwords

    What we're observing, without much reluctance anymore, is that a lot of patent lawyers still push abstract software patents, desperately looking for new trendy terms or adjectives by which to make these seem non-abstract



  9. Interlude: The Need to Counter Misinformation From the Patent and Litigation 'Industry'

    24,500 posts reached; so we pause and reflect, seeing that many sites/blogs of patent maximalists gradually ebb away



  10. Advocacy of the Unitary Patent System Has Become Almost Identical to the 'Leave' (Brexit) Campaign

    The charades of Team UPC carry on in Kluwer Patent Blog — a blog which for a very long time served no purpose other than Unified Patent Court (UPC) advocacy



  11. Open Invention Network is Rendered Obsolete in the Wake of Alice and It's Not Even Useful in Combating Microsoft's Patent Trolls

    Changes at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in US courts' outcomes may have already meant that patent trolls rather than software patents in general are a growing threat, including those that Microsoft is backing, funding and arming to put legal pressure on GNU/Linux (and compel people/companies to host GNU/Linux instances on Azure for patent 'protection' from these trolls)



  12. Bogus Patents Which Oughtn't Have Been Granted Make Products Deliberately Worse, Reducing Innovation and Worsening Customers' Experience

    How shallow patents — or patent applications that no patent office should be accepting — turn out to be at the core of multi-billion-dollar cases/lawsuits, with potentially a billion people impacted (their products made worse to work around such questionable patents)



  13. EPO is Like a Patent Litigation (Without Actual Trial) Office, Not a Patent Examination Office

    Examination of patent applications isn't taken seriously by an office whose entire existence was supposed to be about examination; bureaucracy at the top of this office has apparently decided that the sole goal is to create more demand (i.e. lawsuits) for the litigation 'industry'



  14. Philippe Cadre From the French National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) Wants to Join António Campinos

    Yet another example of INPI's creeping influence if not 'entryism' at the EPO and this time too patent quality isn't a priority



  15. Links 22/9/2018: Mesa 18.2.1, CLIP OS, GPL Settlement in Artifex/First National Title Insurance Company

    Links for the day



  16. Links 21/9/2018: Cockpit 178, Purism 'Dongle'

    Links for the day



  17. 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



  18. 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



  19. Links 20/9/2018: 2018 Linux Audio Miniconference and Blackboard's Openwashing

    Links for the day



  20. Links 19/9/2018: Chromebooks Get More DEBs, LLVM 7.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  21. Links 18/9/2018: Qt 5.12 Alpha , MAAS 2.5.0 Beta, PostgreSQL CoC

    Links for the day



  22. 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)



  23. 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



  24. 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'



  25. Links 17/9/2018: Torvalds Takes a Break, SQLite 3.25.0 Released

    Links for the day



  26. 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



  27. 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



  28. “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)



  29. 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"



  30. 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


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