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

05.13.18

The Evil, Truly ‘Evil’ Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and the Courts Have the Audacity to Verify/Disprove Patent Validity

Posted in America, Patents at 9:00 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

J Nicholas GrossSummary: The concept of patent justice seems rather elusive to those who make a living out of pretending not to grasp it (like Mr. Gross on the right); US patent caselaw, however, continues to improve over time

TECHRIGHTS spent well over a decade complaining about USPTO patents that had been wrongly granted, leading to invalidation attempts. Prior to PTAB this was a lot harder. This meant that patent justice was hard to find unless one had deep pockets (court battles are extremely expensive, especially with appeals taken into account).

“They just don’t care about patent justice, only patent maximalism (maximising litigation and extortion opportunities).”Patent trolls typically rely on software patents. They also depend on dodging actual court battles where validity of patent can be questioned/challenged (before PTAB only courts could do this). This is why trolls’ proponents like Watchtroll, IAM and so on protest against PTAB so much. They just don’t care about patent justice, only patent maximalism (maximising litigation and extortion opportunities).

The Droplets case was recalled by Watchtroll on Friday. James Yang wrote:

Droplets, Inc. v. ETrade Bank

In Droplets, Inc. v. ETrade Bank (Fed. Cir. 2018), ETrade filed a petition for inter partes review against U.S. Patent 8,402,115 (‘115 Patent) which was owned by Droplets, Inc. ETrade was attempting to invalidate the 115 patent because Droplets (patent owner) alleged that ETrade was liable for patent infringement.

The ‘115 Patent was the last patent in a family lineage of four patent applications. See diagram below. The Franco PCT is based on the 917 provisional.

[...]

When reviewing a patent for a noninfringement opinion, do not assume that the prosecution was done properly. As discussed in this case, even though the 115 did not claim priority back to the Franco PCT, the examiner did not use the Franco PCT which would be the best prior art reference against the 115 because presumably at least certain portions were identical to each other.

We already wrote about such noninfringement opinions. Expect sites like Watchtroll, IAM and so on to resort to judge-bashing, lobbying of Iancu etc. We’ll give some examples later today. Another CAFC case has already just been covered by Watchtroll, taking note of a patent which became unenforceable:

The invention disclosed in the ’993 patent, at issue in this appeal, involves heating water on demand during the fracking process instead of using preheated water. Mr. Hefley, the sole named inventor and founder of Heat On-The-Fly, LLC (“HOTF”), filed the earliest provisional application on September 18, 2009. Prior to the critical date of September 18, 2008, Mr. Hefley and his companies performed on-the-fly heating of water on at least 61 fracking jobs using the system described in the ’993 patent application and collected over $1.8 million for those services. Although Mr. Hefley discussed the requirements of the on-sale bar against patent eligibility with his business partner, he did not disclose any of the 61 fracking jobs to the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). The patent issued on May 8, 2012.

Energy Heating LLC (“Energy”), one of HOTF’s competitors, began using its accused process of heating water in 2012. After HOTF raised the possibility of a patent infringement lawsuit and Energy lost a business contract, Energy sought a declaratory judgment that the ’993 patent was unenforceable for inequitable conduct, invalid as obvious, and not infringed.

The district court granted declaratory judgment, finding the patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct, and denied Energy’s motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The Federal Circuit affirmed the court’s finding of inequitable conduct but vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees and remanded on that issue alone.

Proponents of patent maximalism, typically a bunch of law firms, aren’t happy about this status quo. Mr. Gross, an attorney who writes for patent trolls, recently unleashed a bunch of rants against PTAB, such as this (regarding Section 101):

Bad 101 decisions continue to multiply like viruses at PTAB bc, as they say: “the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases… and which way they were decided” https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016005922-04-26-2018-1 … Since 90% decisions are adverse, system is rapidly being poisoned

No, the system is actually being repaired for those who want to mind their own business, creating things rather than suing. Is that so difficult to understand? Here he goes again (regarding Section 101, as usual):

See, this is the additional collateral crap PTAB is now pulling when CAFC affirms using Rule 36… citing Morsa as approving rejection of claims on targeted advertising, bc CAFC too lazy to do review on merits and explain fine distinctions in 101: e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrieveP…

He says that “PTAB continues bastardizing [Section] 101 caselaw”, but he actually means applying, not “bastardizing”:

PTAB continues bastardizing 101 caselaw, including Diehr, to reject claims on “controlling a torque output of an electric machine of an electrified vehicle during a vehicle creep condition” e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrieveP… Mess continues unabated

And again Section 101:

Like hundreds of other small innovators, Invidi gets their patent application on targeted asset delivery system nixed by PTAB as “abstract idea” e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrieveP…

Mr. Gross also took note of Microsoft having its software patents thrown away (Section 101):

LinkedIn bought these patent applications years ago; this is one of 1st of many on “fact checking” technology to be reviewed and rejected by PTAB under 101: they have a long road ahead: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017001329-04-30-2018-1 …

Then the obligatory IBM example (Section 101 invalidation):

IBM Can’t Win at the PTAB; The PTAB Reversed the Examiner’s 101 Rejection But Instituted a New 101 Rejection of the Same Claims: https://anticipat.com/pdf/2018-04-30_13396177_178276.pdf …

Notice the profound impact of Section 101. Without even going to court, various parties actively work to eliminate software patents of patent aggressors.

“It puts engineers/programmers back in control, at the expense of parasitic lawyers who got accustomed to exploiting/taxing them.”What’s not to like?

Well, when one does litigation for a living (and let’s face it, that’s what the above people do) this whole “PTAB thing” is a living nightmare. It puts engineers/programmers back in control, at the expense of parasitic lawyers who got accustomed to exploiting/taxing them.

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. Good News: US Supreme Court Rejects Efforts to Revisit Alice, Most Software Patents to Remain Worthless

    35 U.S.C. § 101 will likely remain in tact for a long time to come; courts have come to grips with the status quo, as even the Federal Circuit approves the large majority of invalidations by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) panels, initiated by inter partes reviews (IPRs)



  2. Florian Müller's Article About SEPs and the EPO

    Report from the court in Munich, where the EPO is based



  3. EPO Vice-President Željko Topić in New Article About Corruption in Croatia

    The Croatian newspaper 7Dnevno has an outline of what Željko Topić has done in Croatia and in the EPO in Munich; it argues that this seriously erodes Croatia's national brand/identity



  4. The Quality of European Patents Continues to Deteriorate Under António Campinos and Software Patents Are Advocated Every Day

    The EPC in the European Patent Office and 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the USPTO annul most if not all software patents; under António Campinos, however, software patents are being granted in Europe and the USPTO exploits similar tricks



  5. Team UPC is Still Spreading False Rumours in an Effort to Trick Politicians and Pressure Judges

    Abuses at the European Patent Office, political turmoil and an obvious legislative coup by a self-serving occupation that produces nothing have already doomed the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); so now we deal with complete fabrications from Team UPC as they're struggling to make something out of nothing, anonymously smearing opposition to the UPC and anonymously making stuff up



  6. Patents on Life and Patents That Kill the Poor Would Only Delegitimise the European Patent Office

    After Mayo, Myriad and other SCOTUS cases (the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is reluctant to grant patents on life; the European Patent Office (EPO), however, goes in the opposite direction, even in defiance of the European Patent Convention



  7. EPO 'Untapped Potential'

    "Campinos is diligently looking for ways to further increase the Office’s output without increasing the number of examiners," says the EPO-FLIER team



  8. Links 9/12/2018: New Linux Stable Releases (Notably Linux 4.19.8), RC Coming, and Unifont 11.0.03

    Links for the day



  9. Links 8/12/2018: Mesa 18.3.0, Mageia 7 Beta, WordPress 5.0

    Links for the day



  10. The European Patent Organisation is Like a Private Club and Roland Grossenbacher is Back in It

    In the absence of Benoît Battistelli quality control at the EPO is still not effective; patents are being granted like the sole goal is to increase so-called 'production' (or profit), appeals are being subjected to threats from Office management, and external courts (courts that assess patents outside the jurisdiction of the Office/Organisation) are being targeted with a long-sought replacement like the Unified Patent Court, or UPC (Unitary Patent)



  11. Links 7/12/2018: GNU Guix, GuixSD 0.16.0, GCC 7.4, PHP 7.3.0 Released

    Links for the day



  12. The Federal Circuit's Decision on Ancora Technologies v HTC America is the Rare Exception, Not the Norm

    Even though the PTAB does not automatically reject every patent when 35 U.S.C. § 101 gets invoked we're supposed to think that somehow things are changing in favour of patent maximalists; but all they do is obsess over something old (as old as a month ago) and hardly controversial



  13. The European Patent Office Remains a Lawless Place Where Judges Are Afraid of the Banker in Chief

    With the former banker Campinos replacing the politician Battistelli and seeking to have far more powers it would be insane for the German Constitutional Court to ever allow anything remotely like the UPC; sites that are sponsored by Team UPC, however, try to influence outcomes, pushing patent maximalism and diminishing the role of patent judges



  14. Many of the Same People Are Still in Charge of the European Patent Office Even Though They Broke the Law

    "EPO’s art collection honoured with award," the EPO writes, choosing to distract from what actually goes on at the Office and has never been properly dealt with



  15. Links 6/12/2018: FreeNAS 11.2, Mesa 18.3 Later Today, Fedora Elections

    Links for the day



  16. EPO, in Its Patent Trolls-Infested Forum, Admits It is Granting Bogus Software Patents Under the Guise of 'Blockchain'

    Yesterday's embarrassing event of the EPO was a festival of the litigation giants and trolls, who shrewdly disguise patents on algorithms using all sorts of fashionable words that often don't mean anything (or deviate greatly from their original meanings)



  17. The Patent Litigation Bubble is Imploding in the US While the UPC Dies in Europe

    The meta-industry which profits from feuds, disputes, threats and blackmail isn't doing too well; even in Europe, where it worked hard for a number of years to institute a horrible litigation system which favours global plaintiffs (patent trolls, opportunists and monopolists), these things are going up in flames



  18. Links 5/12/2018: Epic Games Store, CrossOver 18.1.0, Important Kubernetes Patch

    Links for the day



  19. Links 4/12/2018: LibrePCB 0.1.0, SQLite 3.26.0, PhysX Code

    Links for the day



  20. EPO Management Keeps Embarrassing Itself, UPC More Dead Than Before, and Nokia Turns Aggressive

    The EPO’s race to the bottom of patent quality continues, it’s now complemented by direct association with patent trolls and law stands in their way (for they repeatedly violate the law)



  21. The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and IBM Are Part of the Software Patents Problem in the United States

    IBM's special role in lobbying for software patents (and against PTAB) needs to be highlighted; even Ethereum’s co-founder isn't happy about IBM's meddling in the blockchain space (with help from Hyperledger/Linux Foundation)



  22. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Not Falling for Attempts to Prevent It From Instituting Challenges

    In the face of patent maximalists' endless efforts to derail patent quality the tribunal keeps calm and carries on smashing bad patents



  23. Links 2/12/2018: Linux 4.20 RC5, Snapcraft 3.0, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 3

    Links for the day



  24. The Patent Microcosm Hopes That the Federal Circuit Will Get 'Tired' of Rejecting Software Patents

    Trolls-friendly sites aren't tolerating this court's habit of saying "no" to software patents; the Chief Judge meanwhile acknowledges that they're being overrun by a growing number of cases/appeals



  25. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Continues to Crush Software Patents and Even Microsoft Joins 'the Fun'

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and even courts below it continue to throw out software patents or send them back to PTAB and lower courts; there is virtually nothing for patent maximalists to celebrate any longer



  26. The Anti-Section 101 (Pro-Software Patents) Lobby Looks at New Angles for Watering Down Guidelines and Caselaw

    By focusing on jury trials and patent trolls the proponents of bunk, likely-invalid abstract patents hope to overrule or override technical courts such as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)



  27. Patent Trolls, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu and Section 101

    The world’s most important patent office is now run by a courts-hostile person (an 'American Battistelli') who is happy to ignore the courts’ caselaw and listen to patent trolls instead; this means that science and technology, not to mention the law itself, will suffer



  28. Be Wary of the Latest Lies About the Unified Patent Court (UPC), Courtesy of CIPA and Marks & Clerk (Team UPC)

    It's rather noteworthy that no matter how grim things have become for Team UPC, which drafted and promoted new laws for self-enrichment purposes, these people persist with all the same lies that predate several more barriers, which no doubt will prove fatal to the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)



  29. Links 1/12/2018: 4MLinux 27.0, GNU Wget 1.20 Released

    Links for the day



  30. EPO Management High-Fiving Patent Propaganda Sites Like 'Managing IP' While Granting Illegitimate Patents on Algorithms

    Having mastered the art of hype and buzzwords, the management of the EPO carries on pretending that it does nothing wrong by rubber-stamping abstract patents on mathematics


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