06.30.18
Posted in America, Deception, Marketing, Patents at 9:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“Fake news” or just opportunistic spam?
Summary: Revisiting the problem which is the “public relations” industry or patent law firms dominating news feeds about patents and warping people’s understanding of all the underlying concepts
THE EPO scandals have been mostly ignored by the media and there are reasons for that. In the US, like in Europe, patent news sources got dominated by few publishers that merely repost shameless self-promotion of patent law firms. This is a problem. It’s an agenda-setting, perception-warping exercise. They merely promote patents and conflate these with “innovation”, “assets” etc. That’s marketing pitch and it’s not being fact-checked.
“Patent Analytics Software Aistemos Secures £3M in Series A Funding,” said this headline a few days ago. We’ve been seeing headlines of this kind for quite some time and many so-called ‘news’ sites about patents have placements for companies, so-called ‘news’ about hirings (it’s actually marketing), and sponsored ‘articles’ with phone numbers and E-mail addresses in them (to attract business).
“Is everything just “public relations” now?”This isn’t journalism. Not even remotely. But IDTechEx went even further and created a whole site that’s posing as a news site. Printed Electronics World posts pure spam from Bryony Core. There was a press release with an almost identical headline on the very same day. This isn’t “article” or “journalism”, it’s more like entryism for salesmanship (entering news feeds to front for a company). It says at the top “Hosted by IDTechEx” (to sell products for IDTechEx). It looks/seems to be a corporate site disguised as a news site — the very type of thing we object to because it puts patent ‘businesses’ at the driving seat of “the news”.
This is a real problem; it is not a new problem, but people should certainly be talking about it. Where does one go for objective news about patents? Are the economics associated with reporting to blame? Is everything just “public relations” now? It only gets worse over time. I’ve been following patent news for a decade and a half and nowadays only about 20% of news is actual journalism. The rest is composed directly or indirectly by law firms and companies that promote their patents. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 8:10 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Reference: Wikipedia
Summary: Unified Patents, which petitions/files inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), upsets the very people to whom low-quality patents — and extortion with such patents — are a business model
AS observers of the US patent system we typically keep track of pertinent patents that we believe pertain to software. Dallas (Texas), where many patent trolls go, recently had new patents listed in “Dallas Innovates”/”Dallas Invents”. This site is about USPTO-granted patents, not about innovation or invention. Quite a few of the named patents seem to be on abstract ideas, not some machinery or chemistry or whatever. Courts around Dallas might actually tolerate such patents, but not the Federal Circuit (or SCOTUS, if it ever comes to that).
“Truth be told, Unified Patents does a fine job. If it profits from it, so be it.”A few days later we saw “PatentDallas” ranting about Unified Patents, linking to this blog post from Mr. Gross, who habitually writes for Texan patent trolls like Dominion Harbor — a troll whose patents get targeted by Unified Patents.
Truth be told, Unified Patents does a fine job. If it profits from it, so be it. It actually offers bounties for prior art and utilises Alice to invalidate software patents which are prolifically used, typically by trolls.
Unified Patents has just published some figures of interest, highlighting a rather high proportion of lawsuits coming from trolls:
Patent litigation in the first half of 2018 is 15 percent lower than in the first half of 2017. However, the proportion of NPE-related filings remains high, as seen in the figures below.
For the first time in this report, we have included litigation data for small and medium sized entities or “SMEs” (Figures 10 and 11). Almost 50% of all litigation against SMEs in High Tech was initiated by Patent Assertion Entities (i.e. entities who purchase patents for the primary purpose of monetization). This is especially troubling since SMEs lack the resources to challenge bad NPE assertions and are often forced to settle rather than risk a protracted and expensive litigation. Part of Unified’s mission is to end invalid PAE assertions against SMEs by 2020.
As we said last weekend, the number of US patent lawsuits "Was More Than 50% Higher Half a Decade Ago" and it’s a sign of progress, but the aim should be to reduce troll lawsuits specifically. Not all patent lawsuits are without merit.
“Not all patent lawsuits are without merit.”Days later, citing Unified Patents, patent extremist Richard Lloyd wrote about patent trolls (which he calls “NPEs” because these trolls pay his salary) and the general demise of patent litigation in the US (not behind a paywall, for a change, which means he wants extra exposure). To quote:
US patent litigation continued its slide in the first half of 2018 with 1,660 new suits filed, a 15% drop from the first six months of 2017.
The data, which was released late yesterday by Unified Patents, suggests that infringement cases are in long-term decline from their most recent high in 2015. That is a reflection of the much tougher legal climate that patent owners now face in bringing cases in the US as their IP runs the possible gauntlet of challenges over patent eligible subject matter in district court and inter partes review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
[...]
While they remain very active in the high-tech space, accounting for the vast majority of new cases filed in that sector, Unified’s numbers do reflect the much-reduced threat that companies now face from NPEs. While there are some signs that conditions in the US are improving for patent owners, it doesn’t appear that we’re going to see a return anytime soon to the sky-high litigation rates of just a few years ago.
And that’s a good thing. Unified Patents contributed to fear among trolls (that their patents might be challenged and invalidated if asserted inside or outside the court). Remember that this firm makes money out of elimination of bad patents — certainly something we need more of (less patent maximalism, more patent reason). They have just advertised this upcoming competition. Can they make a generation of people whose goal is to reduce the overall number of patents rather than inflate and dilute? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Law, Patents at 5:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“YOUR CONSTITUTION IS WRONG!!”
People who disagree with Team UPC are “idiots” and Constitutions which deny UPC need to be amended (“require a constitutional amendment,” according to Bristows LLP)
Summary: The Unified Patent Court (UPC) gets another new barrier in line; there are now approximately half a dozen very major obstacles, which almost guarantee that the UPC(A) will need to be scrapped and efforts restart from scratch (if at all)
THE staff of the EPO is partying this weekend. We probably won’t comment on the EPO until Monday, which is the first working day for António Campinos (presumably with a 5-year term/position and possible extensions to that).
“The UPC didn’t need any additional barriers in order for it to be dead in the water.”For a change, let’s talk about the Unified Patent Court (UPC). It is pretty much stuck and we often say it is dead, and not just because of Germany and EPO corruption but also Brexit and various other aspects, including Constitutional ones. There’s lots of legalese associated with it, but to put it in terms anyone can understand, imagine being sued by a patent troll from the United States in a court that does not speak your language. Would that be a fair trial? Would that be enforceable? It’s a rather alien notion of justice. But that’s UPC…
The UPC didn’t need any additional barriers in order for it to be dead in the water. But if there are any new ones, bring them on! So the “Hungarian Constutional Court rules that UPC Agreement cannot be ratified,” said this headline from patent maximalists yesterday. From the post (short and sweet, no obvious spin):
On 29th June, 2018 the decision of the Hungarian Constitutional Court was published on the Court’s website following the Hungarian Government’s motion for the interpretation of the Hungarian Constitution (Basic Act) in relation to the ratification of the UPC Agreement.
Today the Constitutional Court ruled that the UPC Agreement as an international agreement made in the framework of enhanced cooperation deprives the Hungarian courts from having competence for judicial review on a group of domestic legal disputes of individuals. As such right for judicial review is exclusively reserved for Hungarian courts under Article 24 (2) of the Basic Act, the UPC Agreement cannot be ratified based on the current wording of the constitution.
So there we go. Other sites brought up Bulgaria and Romania. But Hungary is a lot more critical, based on various criteria including the number of European Patents. As proper journalism is basically dead/dying (for various reasons), UPC news is not covered by the mainstream if at all, except by patent maximalists; most of the discussion about it is in social control media, with perhaps hundreds of bits of input. So we’ve seen lots of these and picked a subset of what’s relevant or what was seen by more people. Our intention is to show readers the crooked mindset of Team UPC and even some voices of reason within it (telling the more radical among them to quit spreading misinformation).
“Our intention is to show readers the crooked mindset of Team UPC and even some voices of reason within it (telling the more radical among them to quit spreading misinformation).”Let’s start by examining coverage from the Team UPC-dominated Kluwer Patent Blog. An anonymous member of the blog now covers — and of course spins — the latest major setback for the dying UPCA ratification effort. Remember that comments which dissent against UPC are blocked or suppressed; they implemented such a policy some months ago. Last we checked there were no comments on this blog post, so their narrative/framing cannot be challenged. How convenient.
Patrick Wingrove, who is based in London and writes for the UPC-boosting Managing IP (seems like some staff may have left or isn’t active there anymore), also wrote about it. Managing IP, in writing about UPC, no longer calls it “Progress Report” because there’s no progress. It’s a dead, lame duck. “Managing IP rounds up developments related to the Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent in June,” the summary says. No developments to report really; we’ve been following that closely and the main ‘development’ was relay of two infamous lies. Wingrove sounds a bit like Bristows, starting with:
Romania and Bulgaria got closer to ratifying the UPC Agreement this month, but Hungary’s Constitutional Court ruled the UPC Agreement cannot be ratified.
Romania and Bulgaria aren’t relevant to any of it; only Bristows kept obsessing over it.
An idiotic Twitter account whose sole purpose (and name, “UPC BVerfG out yet?”) is designed to pressure for dismissal of the constitutional complaint in Germany said that “another EU MS constitutional court had something to say…”
“Romania and Bulgaria aren’t relevant to any of it; only Bristows kept obsessing over it.”Something to say? It did more than say something. But anyway, what can be expected from an account with such a name? Team UPC’s Thomas Adam (“UPCtracker”) wrote and quoted the patent maximalists, whereupon FFII’s Benjamin Henrion mentioned one of very many aspects that render UPC moot and illegal: “The court was also not asked about other aspects of the UPC, like automated translations.”
There are even worse things than these. The UPC is absolutely crazy! To think that it ever got close to fruition makes one wonder about Europe’s (mal)functioning democracy. UPC is just a wishlist of the litigation industry, patent trolls, and the most aggressive monopolists that aren’t even based in Europe!
Alex Robinson, who calls UPC opponents (like Henrion and us) "idiots" or "trolls", then reared his head to say: “This is very interesting ["interesting" as in "I am angry about it!"] – if I’ve understood that summary correctly, it’s difficult to see how *any* unified patent court system, in any form, could be compatible with the Hungarian Constitution. […] Does the pending Stjerna case in Germany contain similar arguments? Are there similar provisions in the German Basic Law? […] So if UPCA excluded national law as a source of law for UPC proceedings, this could be resolved? That would presumably create its own uncertainties though, eg in determining questions such as entitlement which are not explicitly dealt with by the EPC, by the UPCA or by EU law…”
“The UPC is absolutely crazy! To think that it ever got close to fruition makes one wonder about Europe’s (mal)functioning democracy.”The same sort of complaint/argument could probably be brought up (reused) by Henrion in Belgium and elsewhere. It’s just a matter of budget because costs are prohibitive and we lack financial incentive to take this to courts. Henrion joked: “Or rewrite the UPC to make integrate it with the CJEU. But I bet we will see patent maximalists calling for a change of the HU constitution.”
He was right. Henrion was absolutely right about that, as the patent maximalists (notably Bristows) did just that. Well, we should definitely use the term “patent maximalists” a lot more, maybe “patent extremists” too (albeit it’s less polite). Robinson finds both terms offensive; he said: “I love this bogus pejorative “patent maximalists” that gets thrown around by certain bloggers [alluding to us]. As far as I can work out, it means “anyone who doesn’t think all patents, on anything, anywhere in the world, are intrinsically a bad thing”.”
That’s not at all what we consider to be patent maximalists; Robinson got it all wrong. As for him, we regard him to be “Team UPC” — a whole ‘nother level of patent zealotry (almost on par with Bristows’). These are people who not only lie routinely but also advocate breaking nationals laws, violating constitutions etc.
“The same sort of complaint/argument could probably be brought up (reused) by Henrion in Belgium and elsewhere.”Robinson was then told by Henrion: “Let’s ask the Hungarian court about non legally binding automated translations. Plus all the other points raised by Stjerna. I don’t think the court has only looked at the points raised by the government.”
Henrion keeps talking back to them — something that I stopped bothering with last year (because it’s like talking to a wall; they’re not listening, they’re not accepting facts). Robinson said: “Let’s wait for a translation of the decision! It’s certainly going to be interesting to see if any of the points considered by the court under Hungarian law map onto the details of the Stjerna complaint under German law.”
As if merely having a translation of the decision will change the decision itself; they’re just looking for ways to nitpick, spin and take it out of context, that’s all…
Bristows, however, has already done just that, even before an English (or Spanish) translation became available. Bristows’ Manuel Rey-Alvite wrote: “Oddly, if I understood right (!), it would’ve been worse (thinking Brexit) if the Court had said that HU could ratify using their sovereignty transfer clause for EU treaties. That would have simplified HU ratification but muddied up the rest.”
What on Earth is he talking about???
“As if merely having a translation of the decision will change the decision itself; they’re just looking for ways to nitpick, spin and take it out of context, that’s all…”These people are nuts! Bristows is patently delusional!! Edward Nodder from Bristows now pretends that they can get around the courts; all they need to do — wink wink! — is rewrite the Constitution! Just for the UPC. Just wow!!!
Wow!
Not too surprisingly, even some people of Team UPC mock this post from Bristows. “A rather optimistic take on things,” Thomas Adam wrote. “They should be disbarred,” I remarked, having witnessed and documented their lies and fabrications over the past 3 years or so. People actually pay them for legal advice? Here’s another remark on this post from Bristows: “You say ‘Constitutional amendments are not as rare in Hungary’ and UPC was rejected coz of lack of ‘judicial review’. But is it ever possible to amend Constitution in order to remove judicial review, when JR is definitional of Constitution? Where I sd send u a Public Law textbook…” (prior to that this very same person said “Hungarian Constitutional Court rules that UPC Agreement cannot be ratified”)
“There is a similarity here between Team Battistelli and Team UPC, which seems to believe that it is above the law and whatever sick ends (litigation profits) always justify the means.”This defeats the very purpose of a Constitution. If one can just change it to adapt to anything that’s against it, then what it the essence or purpose of such a Constitution in the first place? There’s a lot of literature about this topic, even TV shows. Again… wow!
There is a similarity here between Team Battistelli and Team UPC, which seems to believe that it is above the law and whatever sick ends (litigation profits) always justify the means.
Most countries did not even check constitutionality, but there too the UPC is totally not Constitutional. In fact, we thought about filing a Constitutional complaint in the UK, but with Brexit it’s already dead here, so ratification was merely a “PR show” on “World IP Day”.
UPC Blog by Amar (Team UPC) said: “It does not seem that Hungary will be ratifying the Unified Patent Court Agreement anytime soon…”
There’s lots more on this, but people even inside Team UPC are depressed about it. Kingsley Egbuonu (also Team UPC) is in ‘damage control’ mode. To quote: “So it’s Hungary’s turn to throw a spanner in the UPC works! Would be interesting to read/understand the court’s reasoning. Yes, not good news (in terms of image/morale) but no panic because, obviously, the UPCA’s fate is in the hands of the German Constitutional Court.”
“Most countries did not even check constitutionality, but there too the UPC is totally not Constitutional.”“No panic,” he said, just like an Iraqi communications minister.
Recalling the key fact that the referendum in Ireland got called off, UPC observer (among other things) Dr. Luke McDonagh said: “That Ireland will have to pass a constitutional referendum/amendment to ratify the Unified Patent Court is another reminder of the influence of public law on private law”
“Ireland need not bother,” I told him, “because the UPCA (on UPC abomination — an open door to patent trolls in Europe) is already in its death throes.” █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA