07.31.18
Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:36 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The European Patent Office (EPO) continues its ride into a wall; Campinos shows no interest whatsoever in changing course and he’s not even meeting staff representatives (breaking a promise he made months ago)
WE DID not expect the change of a single person to undo the EPO scandals, especially as that person was chosen by Battistelli. Well, António Campinos turns out to be just another Battistelli. As expected, he does absolutely nothing differently from Battistelli; he’s just a lot quieter, that’s all. He keeps a lower profile and visibility.
Hours ago we saw further evidence of what we wrote about last night. There’s not much hope among staff. Not even the staff union and those close to it. To quote:
New European Patent Office (EPO) president, António Campinos, was “very impressed” with production increases over the last few years, according to an email sent to all line managers at the office.
Despite mounting dissent from the Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) and ”great concern” from four German law firms over the work targets, Campinos said that each of the three Directorates-General are “progressing with ambitious production targets this year”.
He said that the office’s Early Certainty Initiative has “helped achieve further reductions in our stock” and that this is “acknowledged throughout the patent community, earning the EPO and its staff great respect”.
Campinos became president of the EPO on 1 July, taking over from controversial past-president Benoît Battistelli.
[...]
However, a source close to SUEPO said that while Campinos was picked “for his good social record” in his previous job at the EU Intellectual Property Office, and that SUEPO expected him to “meet first thing with elected staff representatives soon after his arrival”, it had taken him “17 days since he chose to act as his predecessor did, namely, ‘meeting the staff directly’ (read circumventing the statutory staff reps) instead of meeting with those selected by their peers to defend their rights”.
The source also mentioned that Campinos had yet to meet with SUEPO, the largest union representing half of the entire EPO workforce.
The source said: “This after the EPO suffered until recently several (never officially investigated) suicides of staff members, hundreds of depressions, burnouts, resignations, numerous abusive disciplinary sanctions targeting staff and their representatives—even SUEPO officials (one is still dismissed his case pending at ATILO in Geneva).”
The source added: “It is a very negative signal that Mr Campinos chose to send, and maintaining the top managers responsible for the social mess at their positions is not sending a positive signal to staff that things will change.”
SUEPO has not been saying anything for quite some time. The EPO must be enjoying this silence as work runs out (gradually) and recruitment has halted while many leave. Remember what Campinos did months before he left EUIPO; he destroyed a lot of jobs. With a smile? Maybe. That’s just his style. What a gentleman! Unlike Battistelli…
He then gagged his critics. “Like a boss…”
Much of the above reaffirms our belief, based upon underlying evidence, that Campinos would not change a thing when it comes to patent quality. In fact, he further accelerates examination while human ‘resources’ decline. So he is, in some sense, worse than Battistelli.
Hours ago this new press release was published; it’s entitled “European Patent Office to Grant ToolGen, Inc. a patent on CRISPR-Cas9 system for genome editing” and it shows that after the EPO’s Oppositions folks said no to CRISPR patents (monopolies on life itself) the persistence from Korea may be paying off. Is the Campinos-led Office changing this? This happened only days ago:
ToolGen, Inc. (KONEX 199800) announced today that on July 26, 2018 the European Patent Office (EPO) issued a Decision to Grant to ToolGen a European patent covering a CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing system adapted for mammalian cells.
CRISPR-Cas9 is a cutting-edge tool for genome editing in human cells, animals, and plants, widely used in biomedical research and biotechnology. CRISPR technology enables targeted genetic modifications in cells and whole organisms, which can lead to development of novel therapies and value-added crops and livestock.
It’s just a race to the bottom of patent quality. Campinos is fine with it. Team UPC is also fine with it. Earlier today Robert Burrows of Bristows, recognising that they have been silent on Unitary Patent for nearly a month (no progress), returned to his blurbs about Bulgaria which is irrelevant to the UPC (barely any EPs).
There are even worse things to be said about Campinos (than his disregard for patent quality). He continues to defy court orders. It has been over a month now. There is still no transparency either; if anything, Campinos has been even more secretive than Battistelli, which is a negative, not a positive (harder to hold the management accountable).
One reader of ours heard that the EPO is now publishing disciplinary decisions, but nobody is able to verify this. Is there anything at all that Campinos does better than Battistelli? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Europe, Patents at 3:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Not even obeying court orders
Summary: The “No comments” President (who gags his critics) has changed just about nothing at the EPO; so who is actually chanting along the lines of “Hope” and “Change”?
A FEW hours ago Dugie Standeford wrote (behind paywall unfortunately) that “New EPO Chief Outlines Priorities With Global Focus; Staff Wary But Hopeful” (almost contradictory).
What EPO staff is “hopeful”? I wish to know. I’ve personally heard of nobody who is hopeful. Nobody. Maybe some delegates at the Administrative Council are hopeful; maybe he too will give them a lump of money (the way Battistelli did). António Campinos is just cementing Battistelli policies and he has thus far given us no reason for hope. Outside the paywall Standeford wrote:
Antonio Campinos, whose term as president of the European Patent Office began on 1 July, has said he wants to focus on the effectiveness of the organisation, greater global cooperation and “staff engagement.”
The term “effectiveness” is similar to what Battistelli said and the “staff engagement” we’ve seen so far excluded the unions and people whose cases really matter.
In terms of practical changes, there have been none. Patents continue to be granted far too rapidly and quality does not seem to matter. Senior examiners are leaving. Some hours ago we saw more of that “everything is OK” type of spiel. Citing some numbers to which we wrote a rebuttal weeks ago, Joff Wild’s Battistelli-leaning propaganda outlet IAM has just published “Steep rise in the number of oppositions at the EPO matches a surge in grants,” citing “UK patent attorney firm Haseltine Lake,” which has been tracking these numbers for quite some time and graphing them, writing about them etc.
EPO stakeholders or European companies cannot catch up with the soaring number of patent grants, so they cannot quite file oppositions fast enough. That’s a simple explanation for these numbers, but IAM’s agenda is to insinuate high quality of examination (even if major law firms and patent examiners claim otherwise). Patent maximalism means granting bogus patents so fast — much like a DDoS attack — that nobody is able to assess and resist it. From IAM’s introductory paragraph:
The number of oppositions proceedings at the European Patent Office is on the rise – with numbers for 2017 exceeding anything that has previously been seen. But while some may point to this indicating a decline in the quality of grants at the office, the actual explanation looks to be a lot more prosaic: the EPO is granting more patents than ever before, and the number of oppositions is rising in line with this.
But that in its own right isn’t a yardstick of anything such as quality; in the case of the USPTO, for example, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is limited in its capacity and to measure something like patent quality in terms of the number of IPRs would be ludicrous.
Anyway, nothing has changed at the EPO. The President is just quieter. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
07.29.18
Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Recent: Reader’s Post: How the EPO Silently Halves Salaries of Senior EPO Staff (or Gets Rid of Them)
Reference: The Golden Cage
Summary: As the EPO runs out of work questions remain about what will happen to working conditions (if any workers are left who are satisfied at all)
THE OUTSOURCER in chief António Campinos starts his fifth week on the job tomorrow. We are still hearing rumours and speculations about layoffs. In the meantime senior staff is being driven out and/or forced to take cuts. This would be unthinkable somewhere like the USPTO, let alone anywhere in Europe, but the EPO is above the law.
“We’re not sure that the EPO is even recruiting anymore.”The occasional commentary by Märpel, which/who typically writes in the weekends (we’re guessing it’s an EPO insider), now tackles glassdoor.com reviews (recall our article “Job Applicants at the EPO Disappointed, Reference Made in Interview to Slavery”). “Therefore,” Märpel wrote a few hours ago, “as could be expected, the EPO experiences great difficulties in finding candidates when recruiting.”
We’re not sure that the EPO is even recruiting anymore. It’s mostly pretending to. We have heard it from several directions/sources and we have not seen the EPO openly advertising jobs for a number of months. That’s not the usual thing. In Märpel’s words:
In a comment posted on the last article, “Seeking job” noted that the reviews about the EPO on glassdoor.com criticised that the EPO did not respect the rule of law. Glassdoor is only the tip of the iceberg. Märpel asked around. University graduates are organised in trade associations and these are not publicly accessible on the Internet. But they help spread the word.
It normally works as follows:
-trade associations keep lists of their members
-if you are a member and seek a job at the EPO, you look on the list for somebody already working at the EPO and contact them
-that person tells you his or her opinion of the place.
Dear readers who know what goes on recruitment-wise, please get in touch with us securely; we need to know what Campinos plans to do when impending patents/applications backlog runs out. It won’t be long before that happens. What will happen then? █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 2:17 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
This past week’s PTAB roundup
Summary: Considering where the backlash against PTAB keeps coming from, PTAB should be overwhelmingly pleased and rest assured that scientists and technologists are on its side
THE BIG QUESTIONS regarding abstract/software patents were all answered a very long time ago (over 4 years) by SCOTUS. Well, software patents are in general not suitable for enforcement; those that had been granted could barely be enforced successfully after Alice. Few even bother trying anymore. It’s too risky and far too expensive in case of failure. It’s a dangerous gamble.
“…software patents are in general not suitable for enforcement; those that had been granted could barely be enforced successfully after Alice.”Banner & Witcoff’s Charles W. Shifley, i.e. the patent microcosm, has this interesting new article. USPTO officials, who didn’t care about patent quality, belatedly realise that the image of patents is nowadays being eroded and has become negative, so they try to create a “new narrative” rather than improve patent quality. To quote Shifley:
These days, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has a new Director, and reflecting only on the recent “bad,” he calls for a “new narrative” about patents, one that emphasizes their benefit to society. 1 Is a new “new narrative” possible, at this time, and for the foreseeable future? One in which patents are good?
[...]
So back to the introduction. With a whipsawing through bad-to-good and good-tobad again, and with a new PTO Director calling for a “new narrative” about patents, is a new “new narrative” possible? Can there be a new “morning in America” for patents?
Of course, only time will tell. But consider what caused the earlier change from bad-to-good. First, bad led to the adoption of new law, the law that created the Federal Circuit, and the law it created of due care for patent rights. Fast-forward, in the period since the rise of patent enforcement entities, there has certainly been new law. The prime example is the America Invents Act (AIA), with its creation of inter partes reviews (IPRs), and similar postgrant proceedings, to reconsider issued patents. The AIA and IPRs passed a major test in recent months, surviving a constitutional challenge in the Oil States case.
If they worry so much about perception/image of patents being tarnished, then they need to ask themselves what critics are really saying; they usually don’t oppose patents as a concept but bemoan just how far patents have gone. Patent maximalism is the problem; there’s an analogous issue surrounding copyright law (many aspects of it, e.g. term lengths, Fair Use).
“Patent maximalism is the problem; there’s an analogous issue surrounding copyright law (many aspects of it, e.g. term lengths, Fair Use).”The America Invents Act (AIA) has actually been part of the solution; most critics of the old status quo are generally supportive of AIA and pertinent items like PTAB, IPRs etc. It’s not hard to see who opposes these; it’s almost always the patent maximalists; here’s one of them stating that: “So far in July, the PTAB has issued 20 decisions involving claim rejections based on 101/Alice ineligibility. Only 1 decision reversed the examiner.”
He also said that “[t]he PTAB quietly hit a milestone in June in reversing Alice Section 101 rejections,” linking to the latest from a PTAB bashing site called Anticipat (been quiet for a very long time).
They’re just ‘pulling a Berkheimer‘ again:
As we have pointed out in a previous post, for more than a year, reversal rates for abstract idea (Alice) rejections have been extremely low. We are finally seeing an uptick of reversals likely due to Berkheimer and other Federal Circuit case law and recent guidance by the USPTO. As we’ve previously predicted, this reversal rate should continue (and may even go up). But until leadership at the USPTO clarifies its policies, it remains to be seen by how much.
As we’ve previously reported, from August 2016 to April 2017, the PTAB had months where it reversed abstract ideas in the 20 and 30 percentage range. That is, if a month had 100 abstract idea decisions, the Board would reverse the examiner on 20 or 30 of those cases. But May 2017 saw a dismal change in appellant fortunes: the reversal rate for abstract idea rejections tanked. For this period of over a year ago, many months saw only single digit reversal rates. Indeed, no month during this time exceeded a 15% reversal rate. The period was bad for Alice appellants.
We responded to this last weekend in a couple of posts. Basically, Berkheimer has had no considerable impact, but patent maximalists are trying to entice customers by alleging that it has. It is no magic wand and no effective tricks have been pulled out of a hat. It’s almost pure fiction, but these people believe that if they keep saying Berkheimer people will nod (without even knowing the case). We call it ‘pulling a Berkheimer‘; sometimes the lawyers call it “Berkheimer Effect’ (capitalised even), similar to “Alicestorm” and other catchphrases they make up.
“We call it ‘pulling a Berkheimer‘; sometimes the lawyers call it “Berkheimer Effect’ (capitalised even), similar to “Alicestorm” and other catchphrases they make up.”Anyway, previous tricks for bypassing Section 101 have fallen on deaf ears in the courts. Some have even attempted to avoid the courts altogether, asserting that they’re basically immune from the law. PTAB didn’t fall for that trick and neither did judges above PTAB. Native American status does not imply corporations can piggyback that status and it's unlikely that SCOTUS would see it differently if it even bothers dealing with an appeal (which is also unlikely because the Federal Circuit was pretty firm and unambiguous). Here’s one more article we’ve missed, a report from Cyrus Farivar which a reader forwarded to us a few days ago. Let it sink in:
In a unanimous decision, an appellate court has resoundingly rejected the legal claim that sovereign immunity, as argued by a Native American tribe, can act as a shield for a patent review process.
On July 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in a 3-0 decision that the inter partes review (IPR) process is closer to an “agency enforcement action”—like a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Communications Commission—than a regular lawsuit.
IPR is a process that allows anyone to challenge a patent’s validity at the United States Patent and Trademark Office—it was used famously in 2017 to reject the “podcasting patent.”
“This win is a victory in our ongoing efforts to stop patent abuses by brand companies and to help drive access to more affordable medicine,” Mylan CEO Heather Bresch said in a statement on July 20.
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) would be good for the customers too; lower prices, better access to medicine etc.
“An Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) would be good for the customers too; lower prices, better access to medicine etc.”Well done, PTAB.
“The PTAB recently clarified eligibility for a covered business method review (CBM),” wrote Jones Day’s Matthew W. Johnson a few days ago, shedding some light on business methods (although CBM is part of AIA and isn’t quite the same thing), which are intrinsically similar to software patents. To quote:
See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. CBM2018-00011 (P.T.A.B. July 12, 2018) (Paper 12). To establish standing for CBM review, a petitioner must show that the patent in question is a CBM patent. 37 C.F.R. § 42.304. CBM patents “claim[] a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service . . . .” Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, § 18(d)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 329-31 (2011).
In Xerox Corp., the Petitioners requested CBM review of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,967 (’967 patent), which claims a system that allows human ticket-takers to verify already-purchased electronic tickets without having to use a barcode scanner. See No. CBM2018-00011, Paper 12 at 2, 4. Petitioners argued that the ’967 patent is a CBM patent because (1) the utilization and validation of a purchased ticket constitutes a “financial product or service,” and (2) the claimed activities “associated with” the purchased ticket are financial activities. Id. at 9. The Patent Owner responded that the ’967 patent is not a CBM patent because its claims only cover “post-sale” activity. Id.
These are almost definitely abstract patents; The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) enables PTAB to squash these. PTAB is awesome and it typically gets things right. More software patents have just been squashed, as reported just before the weekend by Law 360. Here are the details (it’s about CBM):
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Wednesday invalidated two patents covering digital management systems that were challenged by Dish Network, saying the claims in both patents were directed to the abstract idea of delivering certain data to users.
The PTAB ruled in separate America Invents Act covered business method reviews that Customedia Technologies LLC’s patents were invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice ruling, concluding that U.S. Patent Numbers 7,840,437 and 9,053,494 B2 were directed to nothing more than the abstract ideas of delivering “rented…
Dish Network (stylised as “DISH Network” or shorthanded “DISH”) is actually making stuff; Alice came to its rescue. Customedia Technologies, the plaintiff, is nothing but a pile of patents and lawsuits, based on our quick research. This means that PTAB helps technology here; that’s more of the usual.
“Customedia Technologies, the plaintiff, is nothing but a pile of patents and lawsuits, based on our quick research.”Patent lawyers and attorneys aren’t happy about any of this. That’s expected. To them, PTAB is “death squads” (their analogies really go that far). This whole “death” narrative is being perpetuated every day, giving people the impression that PTAB is “killing”. Here’s a new example: “US Pat 9053494, System for data management and on-demand rental and purchase of digital data products; Killed w/Alice in CBM…”
Killed? Invalidated, not “killed”. But whatever…
Writing about Ex parte Galloway, Donald Zuhn (Patent Docs) wrote:
In a decision issued in May, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reversed the final rejection of claims 35-48 in U.S. Application No. 13/512,585. The claims at issue had been rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,056,690 (“Laskey”) in view of Pajor et al., International Society for Analytical, Cytometry Part A. (2008) (“Pajor”), and Stoeber et al., J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 94(14): 1071-79 (2002) (“Stoeber”), and under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
[...]
The Board concluded that the Examiner failed to provide evidence to support a prima facie case of patent ineligible subject matter, citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), for the proposition that “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.” In particular, the Board noted that “the Examiner did not establish with factual evidence, that the cell counting step, as claimed, is conventional or known in the art.” The Board therefore reversed the Examiner’s rejection of the claims at issue under § 101.
Just ‘pulling a Berkheimer‘ again; this concerns § 101, which is often utilised when software patents are asserted outside or inside the court (threats of litigation, a lawsuit at the district courts, or an expensive appeal to the Federal Circuit).
“This whole “death” narrative is being perpetuated every day, giving people the impression that PTAB is “killing”.”The Patent Docs contributor Michael Borella then weighed in on Ex Parte Jung, which is being labeled informative (like precedence more or less) by the USPTO. It’s about a patent describing a “scene to be played back from the media server in response to the request,” i.e. another nonsensical abstract patent. To quote:
In it, the PTAB clarifies how a certain commonly-used claiming technique could be construed as either in the conjunctive or disjunctive depending on the disclosure of the specification. While this interpretation is not new and dates back to a 2004 Federal Circuit opinion, many practitioners still use similar language in claims with the intent for these claims to be interpreted in the disjunctive only. Therefore, it is worth revisiting this case.
[...]
…specification resulted in a conclusion that while both a conjunctive and disjunctive interpretation was supported therein, there was no “clear definition or disavowal which would compel a disjunctive construction.”
Regarding the second instance of “at least one” in the claim, the PTAB found support for a disjunctive interpretation. But, it stated that “neither the claims nor the remainder of the Specification ever suggest that a connection branch and a contents connection list must be mutually exclusive . . . [t]hus, nothing compels interpreting ‘and’ to mean ‘or’ contrary to its ordinary meaning.”
Therefore, both instances of “at least one” were properly construed as conjunctive. As a result, the PTAB reversed the Examiner’s obviousness rejections, as the PTAB’s claim construction was sufficiently narrower than that of the Examiner to avoid reading on the cited references. The irony here, however, is that the narrower construction of “at least one of a connection branch and a contents connection list” was not adequately supported by the specification. Consequently, the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for lack of written description.
The practice tip here is that a claim term in the form of “at least one of A and B” will be interpreted in the conjunctive unless the Applicant clearly requires a disjunctive interpretation. Nonetheless, numerous practitioners are unaware of SuperGuide and still expect such a term to mean “A or B.” A safe bet for those who wish to claim in the conjunctive or disjunctive is to use “A and B” or “A or B”, respectively. With appropriate support in the specification, of course.
This “obviousness” case serves to show that PTAB is pretty strict — something which Patent Docs (and the likes of it) can barely tolerate, nor can patent extremists like Mr. Gross, who is again ranting about Section 101:
#patent stakeholders: PTAB message is clear – if there is any way you can posit your claims as relating to GUI improvement, your chances of beating bogus 101 test are vastly improved: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017003187-06-25-2018-1 …
Managing IP‘s Michael Loney is now acting as his (Mr. Gross) megaphone in their fight against patent quality. They are nitpicking decisions and quotes (even from dissent) to suit their warped agenda.
Mr. Loney seems to really like perpetuating these talking points of patent maximalists; RPX being one of their latest. As Mr. Gross put it the other day:
As expected, Unified Patents is panicking about repercussions of Internet Time v. RPX case by CAFC to their patent blackmail IPR threat model!, their FAQs are modified to try and paper their way into safe harbor; before and after website versions attached to show dramatic changes pic.twitter.com/huOlngXDym
“14 of the 22 patent suits filed Monday were filed by patent trolls,” said this tweet last week, “according to RPX Corp. That’s 64%.”
“They are nitpicking decisions and quotes (even from dissent) to suit their warped agenda.”RPX is dying a slow death; it profits from an abundance of patent trolls and as PTAB halts much of their activity the necessity for RPX membership isn’t quite there anymore.
In a perfect world, patent trolls would simply go extinct. In order for that to happen patent quality would need to be improved and scrutiny of patents made cheaper (more accessible). This is why PTAB is so important. This is why it has passionate enemies among patent maximalists. They rely on low-quality patents/examination — a prerequisite to explosion in grants and litigation those grants can entail. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in America, Patents at 10:46 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
So why do many firms still pursue patents in AI and blockchain ‘clothing’?
Formula for success at the patent offices (sometimes), but not at patent courts
Summary: In an effort to make algorithms sound more advanced or more scientific applicants now ride the hype waves (fashionable trends), hoping that examiners would grant out of ignorance (of the said buzzwords/hype)
THE patenting of software was always our first and foremost concern, predating by 8 years our in-depth EPO coverage, which also concerns software patents in Europe.
In the United States we’ve been seeing a retreat to buzzwords and hype; applicants try to disguise the fact that the patents they pursue simply cover some algorithms. Buzzwords and hype are increasingly being used to pursue software patents that are totally bunk. Such patents would be invalidated in courts (if that ever reached them).
“In the United States we’ve been seeing a retreat to buzzword and hype; applicants try to disguise the fact that the patents they pursue simply cover some algorithms.”Bereskin & Parr LLP’s Isi Caulder and Paul Blizzard have just published this article at Lexology; it speaks of “Expanding Use of AI and ML software at Intellectual Property Offices (IPOs),” by which they mean automation of examination and search using clever algorithms, not necessarily patenting of these underlying algorithms.
To quote:
On February 8th, 2018 the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) released a summary[1] of the replies given by national and regional IPOs about the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) software in the administration at the IPO, and the results are a very interesting perspective on the adoption of various legal tech initiatives in government and administrative environments.
[...]
The report pointed to numerous different use cases for AI in the administration of IP, including automatic patent classification, automatic recommendation of classes for goods and services in Trademark applications, prior art searching and analytics, Trademark image searching, Trademark examination as a whole, helpdesk services for Applicants, general administrative tasks for IP management, machine translation of foreign language documents, and data analysis for economic research.
WIPO, incidentally, also promotes patents on so-called ‘AI’, not just use of it for patent processes. The EPO has been doing a lot of that lately.
Strafford now promotes software patents under the umbrella of “Machine Learning”; those are software patents and mathematics, statistics. Those would not be valid under § 101, but they frame it as a sort of open question: “How can patent counsel meet the requirements under §101 and §112 in machine learning patent applications?”
“Aside from the “AI” hype there’s also “blockchain” and patents that claim to be on or pertaining to blockchains.”Well, Strafford is just interested in litigation (see this other webinar it has just advertised; it’s about PPH).
Aside from the “AI” hype there’s also “blockchain” and patents that claim to be on or pertaining to blockchains. These are worthless patents. They would never withstand scrutiny of higher courts. It’s part of a patent gold rush in the US and elsewhere. Days ago there was this article about it which said:
While the landscape for blockchain is still in its infancy, its potential has led the world’s leading accounting firms to explore ways to implement the emerging technology in their work. The latest is Ernst & Young LLP which has acquired certain technology assets and patents to boost its services for crypto assets.
Accounting services firm has purchased the Andy Crypto-Asset Accounting and Tax (CAAT) tool from the US-based startup Elevated Consciousness, Inc. The solution connects with multiple cryptocurrency exchanges and wallets, allowing for better visibility into cryptocurrency transactions.
Those are just software patents. We couldn’t help noticing this new tweet, which correctly points out: “What kind of protection today are #blockchain patent owners expecting? Even with long claims (which diminishes value) the courts can quickly invalidate under #Alice for abstraction. Is long term bet that eligibility laws will open up?”
“If quality control isn’t taken seriously, people will gradually learn that there’s no point bothering with the system.”Where we are at the moment isn’t too encouraging; patent offices grant software patents under the guise of supporting “AI” and other vague concepts; what will happen when many of these patents get invalidated, ruining confidence in the remainder and devaluing the system? If quality control isn’t taken seriously, people will gradually learn that there’s no point bothering with the system. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in IBM, Patents at 7:48 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) tackles many low-quality patents and patent litigation has therefore gone down sharply; Watchtroll has resorted to derision of the system, reinforcing the widely-held belief that patent maximalists aren’t interested in science and technology but in trolling/litigation
THE patent extremists seem to be getting more extreme over time. Watchtroll is a good example of it because it nowadays attacks judges, puts “Shit” in its headlines and miraculously enough IBM the patent bully is still happy enough to associate with Watchtroll. That says a lot about IBM and how desperate it has become; it’s trying to warp itself into more of a “patent licensing” giant.
We don’t want to spend too much time talking about Watchtroll (like news channels that spend a lot of their time merely responding to or debunking Fox ‘News’), but for many patent extremists it is the ‘go-to’ site, so we cannot just altogether ignore it, either. We’ll just rebut ‘in bulk’.
“We don’t want to spend too much time talking about Watchtroll (like news channels that spend a lot of their time merely responding to or debunking Fox ‘News’)…”“Aveed®” (with the trademark included) was mentioned by Watchtroll two days ago in this article about the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and yesterday they returned to their obsession over China, even if that has nothing to do with patents. It’s just part of an alarmist strategy for altering laws, under the guise of “emergency”. We wrote many articles about this strategy before. Also yesterday we saw David Wanetick publishing a sob story in Watchtroll. “Inventors face disrespect, derision and hostility at every turn,” Watchtroll now says, conflating patents (of people who troll) with invention.
Alluding to the trade secrets litigation trend, Watchtrol’s Steve Brachmann mentioned it in passing and Jeremy Sherman together with Priyan Meewella then (on the same day) asserted that software disputes are over licensing rather than patenting. “Software licensing disputes are on the increase,” they said, “a trend that is being driven to a large degree by customers implementing new technologies without examining how this affects pre-existing agreements.”
Watchtroll did the usual moaning about patent obviousness and PTAB/CAFC bashing, knowing that PTAB isn’t going away and issuing yet more court-bashing (anti-CAFC) pieces would be counterproductive.
Ultimately, it’s sites like Watchtroll that attack the patent system (especially the court, i.e. justice), whereas we are the ones trying to maintain or restore its integrity, as per its original goals/purpose. We often wonder if Watchtroll realises how much damage it actively does to its supposed cause by reinforcing a ruinous stigma. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Content is available under CC-BY-SA