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

06.13.18

When the USPTO Grants Patents in Defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101 the Courts Will Eventually Squash These Anyway

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 1:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Squashed again and again, but many examiners refuse to learn their lessons

Squash player

Summary: Software/abstract patents, as per § 101 (Section 101) which relates to Alice Corp v CLS Bank at the US Supreme Court, are not valid in the United States, albeit one typically has to pay a fortune for a court battle to show it because the patent office (USPTO) is still far too lenient and careless

THE USPTO, together with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), isn’t what it used to be. PTAB increasingly gets involved in examination itself, instructing examiners to reject applications while habitually citing 35 U.S.C. § 101 (we used to give many examples of that, but we stopped some months ago). This means that it’s already getting a lot harder for examiners to grant software patents unless they’re disguised using vague buzzwords (in the US it’s nowadays fashionable to add words like “cloud” or “blockchain”).

“…it’s hugely expensive (if not infeasible) to legally challenge entire pools like MPEG-LA’s.”Oppositions to US patents or patent applications appear to be on the rise (we have not seen all the associated figures*) and a couple of days ago we wrote about opposition to Google. Google is “trying to patent software,” according to a new article which says that the “software in question is a compression technique called asymmetric numeral systems (ANS), and was devised by a computer scientist at Jagiellonian University in Poland, Jarek Duda, who says that he invented it in 2014.”

Oddly enough, the EPO allowed compression algorithms to be patented, as Benjamin Henrion noted a few days ago in relation to this story. But would such patents survive a court’s challenge? We very much doubt it, but such patents typically get bundled together with other software patents inside patent pools; it’s hugely expensive (if not infeasible) to legally challenge entire pools like MPEG-LA‘s.

Anyway, the US courts will probably make up for the USPTO’s failures when it comes to handling of such patents. In Blackberry v Facebook, based on this new article, it seems apparent that Facebook knows software patents are worthless, so citing Alice it challenges the very validity of BlackBerry’s patents, no matter the alleged infringement thereof:

Facebook has turned to familiar counsel to defend a high-profile patent attack by BlackBerry Ltd.

Cooley partners Heidi Keefe, Mark Weinstein and Michael Rhodes say that four of the nine BlackBerry patents, asserted in March against Facebook messaging and notification technology, are eligible for patent protection under Section 101. The same triumvirate has represented Facebook in virtually all of its patent litigation.

The patents are directed at “ancient concepts—who gets a message, how it is sent and the manner of notification,” states Facebook’s motion to dismiss, filed Friday and signed by Keefe. “They take abstract concepts and apply them ‘on a computer.’ This is not enough to be patent-eligible.”

The 31-page motion includes visual aids, a staple of Keefe’s advocacy, including stock photos of an information kiosk at a shopping center and a stack of “while you were out” message pads.

[...]

Facebook’s motion to dismiss is premised on the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, which has been used to defeat numerous software technology patent suits at an early stage. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that Alice motions can involve fact issues that must be decided by juries. BlackBerry’s complaint includes detailed allegations that its inventions are not “well-understood, routine or conventional.”

Much of the press focuses on Facebook patents right now (so far this week; see [1-4] at the bottom), albeit not because of these patents but because of privacy concerns. There’s a similar discussion about Uber trying to patent software in spite of software patents being bunk and patent-ineligible in the US. To quote:

As a matter of good practice, tech companies typically patent every idea they come up with, regardless of whether or not they plan to implement it. And with good reason, patent trolls love targeting tech firms in jurisdictions that tend to give frivolous lawsuits far more leeway than they otherwise deserve. Consequently, it’s not uncommon to come across downright bizarre patents that will never see the light of day. At the same time, sometimes you come across a quirky patent that is equal parts crazy and equal parts genius. A recent patent filing from Uber seems to encompass just that.

Uber’s patent merely describes the assessment of data gathered through means which are peripheral to the software. Section 101 would almost certainly void such a patent.

How about USAA’s lawsuit? There has been lots of attention paid to it.

As we noted two days ago, USAA is sometimes a patent bully that uses what seems to be software/abstract patents. USAA is sometimes on the receiving end of patent lawsuits and is hoarding software patents [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. This latest lawsuit has since then been covered in general news sites that say “Wall Street giant, Wells Fargo (WFC), in the spotlight once again after USAA accuses the former of patent infringement.”

We now see this also in niche sites about payments and American Banker, which is also quite mainstream.

As we argued on Sunday, nothing suggests that anything concrete was patented, but it’s up for judges to decide. Section 101 comes to mind. Judge Bryson has just dealt with 35 U.S.C. Section 101 albeit not in the context of software but of “claiming patent protection for a natural law.” (Pernix Ireland Pain Ltd. et al v Alvogen Malta Operations Ltd.)

As Docket Navigator summed it up:

The court denied defendant’s motion to reconsider an earlier order granting plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of its pain treatment patents did not encompass unpatentable subject matter.

It isn’t about software but about Section 101, which also encompasses decisions such as Mayo.

Either way, there are always those desperate and delusional patent law firms out there which ‘pull a Berkheimer‘ any time Section 101 gets brought up, insinuating — rightly or wrongly — that evidence is lacking/insufficient. Dechert LLP’s Robert D. Rhoad and Michael A. Fisher are the latest to attempt to ‘pull a Berkheimer‘ (a Federal Circuit decision from several months back). Here’s what they wrote; the background is of relevance:

In 2014, the Supreme Court established a two-prong test for determining whether a patented invention claims patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101: first, courts ask whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept—i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and if it is, they then search the claim for an “inventive concept” that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). Under the second prong, if the limitations of the claim only involve “‘well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry,” it lacks the required “inventive concept.” Id. at 2359. Since Alice, district courts have been invalidating an unprecedented number of patents on § 101 grounds at the pleadings stage or on summary judgment.

At the end, in spite of Berkheimer barely being brought up and accepted by judges, they say this:

Accused infringers can still cite numerous Federal Circuit cases affirming the invalidation of patents at the pleadings or summary judgment stage, and the court has stated that it casts no doubt on the propriety of those cases. See, e.g., Berkheimer II, 2018 WL 2437140, at *3. However, the Berkheimer and Aatrix line of decisions give patentees a powerful tool to fight against invalidation of their patents before trial.

Well, how often have Berkheimer and Aatrix been used successfully by the plaintiff? Almost never. Or almost a handful of times perhaps, i.e. perhaps once a month. Those who resort to Berkheimer and Aatrix as a sort of “appeal to authority” clearly don’t know what they’re talking about or are deliberately lying. Virtually nothing has changed for the better as far as lawyers are concerned. No ‘pendulum’ has ‘swung back’, unless one asks wishful thinkers and think tanks like IAM.
______
* It should be noted that oppositions are also soaring in Europe and by year’s end it’s expected/estimated that patent filings will have declined in the US.

Related/contextual items from the news:

  1. Facebook Tells Congress It Hasn’t Used Eye Tracking Patents
  2. Facebook DENIES it’s building eye-tracking software despite holding two patents for the technology
  3. Facebook denies building eye-tracking software but says if it ever does, it will keep privacy in mind
  4. Facebook denies building eye-tracking software

    Facebook denied building eye-tracking software in its response to questions from Congress released Monday but said if it ever did build out the technology, it would take privacy into account.

    The social media company holds at least two patents for detecting eye movements and emotions, which it said “is one way that we could potentially reduce consumer friction and add security for people when they log into Oculus or access Oculus content.” Oculus is a virtual reality platform that Facebook bought in 2014.

    The company provided a written response to unanswered questions from Congress on its data use, privacy policy and its ad-based business model. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was asked about its technologies and potential uses by lawmakers during an appearance before Congress in April.

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. Reader's Article: Affaire Benalla Strongly Connected to EPO/OEB/EPA and Former President Benoît Battistelli

    A Macron scandal has led French media to finally (and years too late) exploring some of the much more explosive scandals at the EPO, revealing some interesting new details in the process



  2. 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



  3. 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)



  4. 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



  5. 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



  6. '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.)



  7. 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



  8. 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)



  9. 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



  10. 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



  11. 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



  12. 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)



  13. 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)



  14. 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'



  15. 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



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day



  18. 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



  19. 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



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day



  23. 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)



  24. 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



  25. 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'



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

    Links for the day



  27. 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



  28. 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



  29. “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)



  30. 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"


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