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

06.17.18

To Keep the Patent System Alive and Going Practitioners Will Have to Accept Compromises on Scope Being Narrowed

Posted in America, Patents at 12:55 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

They want to keep the pie and eat it as well

Big pie

Summary: 35 U.S.C. § 101 still squashes a lot of software patents, reducing confidence in US patents; the only way to correct this is to reduce patent filings and file fewer lawsuits, judging their merit in advance based on precedents from higher courts

THE USPTO has undergone quite a few changes in recent years, triggered initially by AIA and then SCOTUS downwards (‘trickling’ down to lower courts over time).

“The patent microcosm prefers to cherry-pick cases based on their outcome.”Among the main casualties? Software patents. The patent microcosm prefers to cherry-pick cases based on their outcome. The latest such example is Zeroclick v Apple, a Federal Circuit (CAFC) case from the very start of this month [PDF]. We wrote about it a couple of days later and Watchtroll did too (a relatively long time afterwards); it’s said to be about “(G)UI code” even though there’s no such thing (in programming there’s a callback function associated with pertinent GUI elements, but the GUI itself is just a layout, which could possibly be seen as copyrighted). Anyway, this isn’t a case about software patents or even § 101/Alice. Some say it is about § 112. Those same people (or a colleague, Charles Bieneman) speak of DDR Holdings, which is utterly desperate to salvage some abstract patents from § 101; the ‘famous’ case of DDR Holdings was mentioned a lot in 2016 (even here, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4]), but it was rarely cited since. The word “Saves” (not “Survives” as patent maximalists typically put it) was used to describe the following move:

The Federal Circuit’s famous (or infamous) decision that one DDR Holdings’ patent was not invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was used to support a district court’s denial of a motion for judgment of § 101 for three other DDR Holdings’ patents. In DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com, LLC, No. 17-498 (D. Del. June 5, 2018), the court denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings, because the three present patents-in-suit share the same inventive concept” as U.S. 7,818,399, which the Federal Circuit held patent-eligible in its 2014 decision in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Priceline.com, LLC.

The previously-litigated ’399 patent is entitled “Methods of expanding commercial opportunities for internet websites through coordinated offsite marketing,” and claims, in a nutshell, one online merchant to presenting retail opportunities framed with branding of another online merchant.

If business methods or software patents are being authorised by the district court, it oughtn’t necessarily mean that CAFC will agree. In fact, it seems quite likely that an appeal would void these patents, judging by the deviation in views and interpretations (CAFC is a lot harsher or stricter than any of the district courts). Ideally, in order to improve certainty around patent eligibility, the district courts will need to become more like CAFC, which itself became more like SCOTUS. That’s just how application of law works. The precedents cascade downwards, not upwards.

“If business methods or software patents are being authorised by the district court, it oughtn’t necessarily mean that CAFC will agree.”Staying with that same law firm/site, which is actually not bad at all (pretty moderate), here they give a new example of 35 U.S.C. § 101 in action. It still puts an end to a lot of patents wrongly granted by the Office, especially software patents. Well, the ‘famous’ case of DDR Holdings was brought up to no avail:

Patent claims directed to monitoring Internet activity “to increase the objectivity of the search results returned responsive to a search for talented original content creators” were held invalid under the Alice/Mayo abstract idea test and 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, in Talent Broker Tech. LLC v. Musical.ly, Inc., CV 17-08532 SJO (MRWx) (C.D. Cal. May 22, 2018), the Court granted the defendant’s Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss, finding claims of US 8,510,154 and US 8,630,894 patent-ineligible.

This was the defendant’s second motion to dismiss, the first having been granted with the plaintiff given the significantly more than an old and fundamental idea. As before, on the present motion the court found “that the claims of the Patents-in-Suit are directed to the abstract idea of organizing, differentiating and retrieving information.” For example, claim 1 of the ’894 patent, said the court,

It was a software patent and now it’s gone. Bieneman’s colleague Daniel Hegner meanwhile covered a district court case regarding a major patent troll, Uniloc. This troll is losing yet another software/abstract patent, owing to 35 U.S.C. § 101. To quote Hegner:

N. District Court of California grants Apple’s 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings (following full briefing and oral argument) finding claims of U.S. Pat. No. 6,661,203 ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on broad functional claim language that does not recite how to achieve the claimed process beyond what is known in the admitted prior art. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Civil No. C 18-00358 WHA (N.D. Cal. May 18, 2018).

Uniloc (Uniloc USA and Uniloc Luxembourg) sued Apple for infringement of its battery charging and discharging system.

There have been other examples lately, especially at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Sooner or later Uniloc might go out of ‘business’. It operates via rather dodgy proxies (like the one in Luxembourg, Europe) and its patents are being axed one by one, sometimes owing to the bounties-offering Unified Patents.

“For law firms, as well as for courts, predictability is very important. They otherwise look like fools or cheats to their clients.”Seeing that such patents mostly perish in the face of § 101 we have to wonder how long it will be before: 1) the USTPO will quit issuing such patents. 2) patent law firms will stop advising clients to pursue such patents (or clients themselves lose interest). 3) no more lawsuits of this kind will be filed, knowing the the outcome will be favourable to the defendant or neither side (both sides just having to pay legal bills, potentially with the plaintiff footing both sides’ bills).

The sooner (1)-(3) may happen, the more rational, sane and predictable the US patent system will become. For law firms, as well as for courts, predictability is very important. They otherwise look like fools or cheats to their clients.

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. Lots of UPC Noise/News This Week Over a Document Which Merely Weakens Commitment to the UPC

    Lost in the noise created by Team UPC this week is the simple fact that the British government now admits it's willing to abandon all Unified Patent Court (UPC) Agreement (UPCA) plans



  2. Director Iancu and President Campinos Both Serve the Litigation 'Industry' Instead of Science and Technology

    When some of the world's largest patent offices only listen to the new 'industry' (created only by virtue of these offices themselves) there's danger that patents will be granted for the sake of there being more patents and lawsuits rather than for advancement of the sciences



  3. Links 25/9/2018: Mesa 18.1.9, New Fedora Beta, and Oracle Solaris 11.4 SRU1

    Links for the day



  4. Technology Groups and Innovators Bemoan Attempts to Override the Courts to Promote Patent Maximalists' Agenda by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not listening to the views of actual innovators; it seems to be serving just the patent and litigation 'industry' (i.e. those who profit from illegitimate patents and baseless lawsuits)



  5. Patent Trolls Roundup: Microsoft's Patent Troll Collapses, Samsung Fuels Patent Troll Sisvel, and Patent Troll VirnetX Wants Apple's Cash

    Microsoft's largest patent troll continues to experience a mass exodus (in addition to all the layoffs), Sisvel receives armament from Samsung, and VirnetX carries on pretending -- to shareholders at least -- that it will get a lot of money out of Apple (albeit an appeal will likely prevent that altogether)



  6. António Campinos Goes to UPC-Hostile Country, UPC Continues to Languish and Team UPC Carries on Pushing for Software Patents in Europe (Courts Also)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) fantasy has fizzled, but those striving to interject software patents agenda into Europe from the back door (e.g. labeling these "AI" or ignoring the stance of actual courts) aren't giving up just yet



  7. The Man Whose Actions Could Potentially Land Team Battistelli in Jail

    As new evidence and more material surfaces about Benalla, Battistelli tries hard to hide himself from French media, knowing that he might be criminally culpable



  8. Links 24/9/2018: Linux 4.19 RC5 From Greg Kroah-Hartman, OpenShot 2.4.3 Released

    Links for the day



  9. 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



  10. 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



  11. 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)



  12. 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



  13. 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



  14. '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.)



  15. 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



  16. 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)



  17. 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



  18. 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



  19. 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



  20. 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)



  21. 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)



  22. 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'



  23. 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



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day



  26. 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



  27. 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



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day



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

    Links for the day


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