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

07.05.18

Abstract Ideas and Mental (Thoughts) Type of Claims Still Deemed Patent-Ineligible, Buzzwords Are Used Instead

Posted in America, Asia, Europe, Patents at 9:02 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Cloud Computing”, “AI” etc. in so-called ‘IP Five’

Cityscape Delaware

Summary: The District Court for the District of Delaware (above) now attracts a lot of patent litigation; this court, however, isn’t so tolerant of software patents (more like the Federal Circuit and less like East Texas); in East Asia buzzwords are also being used, but courts aren’t necessarily tolerant of abstract patents; Europe is a mess because of the EPO’s abuses

THE Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), together with the USPTO as a whole, is doing what patent law firms fear the most. There’s a wide-ranging patents cull and the most common criterion for culling is abstract claims.

Ancestry (the company), according to this new tweet, “Argues that the 23andMe Patent Asserted Against It is Invalid under Mayo/ Alice: https://dlbjbjzgnk95t.cloudfront.net/1059000/1059443/show_temp%20(25).pdf…”

“Buzzwords like “cloud” don’t magically render algorithms more “concrete”.”It is. We wrote about it before. It probably won’t be long before this whole lawsuit collapses, sending a warning sign to anyone who feels courageous enough to still use software patents in 2018. They can call these anything they want, but the courts eventually assess whether claims are abstract or not. The cloudwashing of software patents, for example, won’t work either. Buzzwords like “cloud” don’t magically render algorithms more “concrete”.

Covering a relatively new case from the District Court for the District of Delaware (where much of the litigation now happens), patent maximalists speak of “§ 101 issues in light of Federal Circuit patent-eligibility decisions since early 2016.”

To quote the entire opening paragraph:

This month, in an infringement case against Defendant Amazon, Judge Stark of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled that Plaintiff Kaavo Inc.’s cloud computing claims are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. In related cases dating back to 2016, the Court ordered that the asserted independent claims be found patent-ineligible, as well as one of the dependent claims. The Court later ordered limited discovery, claim construction, and summary judgement briefing with respect to the eligibility of the remaining dependent claims. Kaavo then moved for reconsideration of the Court’s Order invalidating all of the asserted independent claims and the one dependent claim, whereas Amazon moved for summary judgement. The Court denied both motions without prejudice and instead ordered new briefing to allow for consideration of the § 101 issues in light of Federal Circuit patent-eligibility decisions since early 2016. Renewals of both motions were at issue in this latest decision, in which the Court granted Amazon’s renewed motion for summary judgement of invalidity of the remaining dependent claims and denied Kaavo’s renewed motion to reconsider.

Looking eastwards towards China, the main/only country that still permits software patents, Jacob Schindler wrote about declining winning rates in courts there. To quote:

IP House – a litigation analytics outfit based in Beijing – recently released a Chinese-language study of cases involving semiconductor patents from its database. It has been shared an analysed by Berkeley professor Mark Cohen on his China IPR site. Of note: this sample of cases does not yield the high plaintiff winning rates we are used to seeing in macro-level Chinese patent statistics. First off, the selection of cases is relatively small. IP House turned up 133 first instance civil trials which yielded a judgment containing the word ‘chip’.

So even in China patent litigation is still not a “winning” strategy. Here is another new article about China, this one about abstract patents on GUIs:

In 2014, the number of design patents with GUI in China was more than 5,000, which was 6,638 in 2015, and 9,864 in 2016, a growth rate of up to 48.6%. In 2017, this number basically equaled that in 2016.

Is the bubble in China starting to burst? It is no secret that China just grants far too many low-quality patents (not even patent maximalists are disputing it!), which means that they make a mockery of the very concept of patents.

“Software patents by any other (buzz)name/word…”Earlier this week Managing Intellectual Property wrote about patent filings in China and then did another piece about “blockchain, AI, software patents” in China. Well, those are pretty much the same thing. Software patents by any other (buzz)name/word…

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is nothing news. They just call more and more old stuff “AI” in an effort to generate public interest/hype. For the third time this week the same site did a piece dedicated to “AI”, in which Ellie Mertens said:

Artificial intelligence will have a big impact on IP prosecution and litigation. Ellie Mertens takes a look at how it will change life for patent practitioners

Artificial intelligence (AI) relates to patents in two main ways. First, advancements in the technology can be protected by patents. Second, AI can be applied to the patent space to reduce inefficiencies.

They’re talking about whether automation (not “AI”) can make some tasks of law firms (e.g. search) more efficient and thus render some workers redundant.

Looking at Europe, there’s this new article by Frances Wilding, David Lewin, James Ward and James Sunderland (Haseltine Lake LLP). It promotes hype and buzzwords as surrogates for software patents at the EPO (“Neural Networks, Machine Learning And Artificial Intelligence”), in effect parroting Battistelli-produced propaganda from earlier this summer:

A recent EPO report talks about “A new era of technological development characterised by digital transformation”, based on “information and communication technologies” (“ICT”) and amounting to a “fourth industrial revolution”. The present review looks at three specific aspects of ICT – neural networks, machine learning and artificial intelligence – which the EPO report groups together as “enabling machine understanding”.

Developments of these aspects may relate to their implementing hardware and software or to any of the extensive range of their possible applications, for example from assisting medical diagnosis to image recognition to natural language understanding to operating wind turbines to playing the game of go. This means that capture of relevant patents and applications using the International Patent Classification (IPC) is challenging, as incidentally illustrated by the EPO report.

This review takes a simple and direct approach: using full texts and keywords “neural network”, “machine learning” and “artificial intelligence”, searches for European patents having patent (B1) publication dates over the 10-year period 2008 to 2017 were carried out.

Notice how many other buzzwords they throw into the mix, including the EPO’s favourites, “ICT” and “fourth industrial revolution”.

Over at the Battistelli-leaning IP Kat (it became the opposite of what it used to be) there’s this new lengthy post about rulings from the EPO. “According to UK case law and the Technical Boards of Appeal (TBA) of the European Patent Office (EPO),” it said, “for a range overlapping with a known range to be novel, the prior art must at least not disclose specific values within the overlapping range. This is the principle that a generic disclosure is not novelty destroying for specific examples covered by the generic.

“The TBA have established further criteria for an overlapping range to be novel. The claimed range must also, for example, have a technical effect. These criteria can seem addressed to the question of inventiveness as opposed to novelty. For this reason, the UK courts have previously been reluctant to adopt the TBA approach. The recent decision by the Court of Appeal has now firmly incorporated part of the EPO’s approach into UK case law.”

As a reminder, the TBA does not enjoy independence anyway. The Boards of Appeal (BoA) are being threatened and the EPC was essentially killed by corrupt Battistelli (shredding it to pieces over the years). Mind the following new comment:

For me, this is a fine example of different jurisdictions helping each other to feel their way forward under the substantive provisions of patentability/novelty of the EPC. I like it, when the jurisprudence of English law, and that of the Boards of Appeal, converges, despite the gulf of difference between them in how they assess evidence of fact.

It seems to me that, because of rivalry between EPC jurisdictions, progress under the EPC is almost Darwinian, survival of the fittest legal logic. Keeping novelty distinct from obviousness is easier said than done but here again, Europe leads the way, thanks to the EPC, Art 54(3).

Where else in the world, outside Europe, is there so much legal certainty, what is patentably novel, and what is not? Why, in the USA, they seem not yet to have got as far as considering elementary quesations about novelty, like whether D1 is to be construed as of its date of publication, or as of the day before the date of the claim.

UPC threatens to change all that. It would broaden patent scope in the whole of Europe in one fell swoop if somehow (miraculously) it became a reality.

Going back to East Asia, there’s this news about standard-essential patents in Japan, alluding to patent lawyers as “IP [sic] lawyers” or “Practitioners”; they’re neither because “IP” is just a misleading term and because they practice nothing, they’re blood-sucking parasites looking to exploit (or prey on and tax) those who practice technology. Those are the types of people who lobby hard for the UPC. Anyway, the article says the following:

IP lawyers in Japan say the standard essential patent guidelines are a good start but will not have much case impact because they are not legally binding

The Japan Patent Office has released guidelines to licensing negotiations involving standard essential patents (SEPs).

Japan has attempted to reduce abuse and aggression with patents. Remember that the JPO and Japan’s patent courts aren’t the same thing. Software patents and other abstract patents aren’t favoured there unless buzzwords are used, e.g. IoT.

Oddly enough, citing just one person (whose blog post IAM reposted) IAM now says this: “Business method patents may be out of favour in the US, but in Japan they are enjoying a comeback, while in China they are surging.”

Well, China suffocates itself with low-quality patents on mere ideas, guaranteeing its industry will sink under lawyers’ weight. As for Japan? It has only gotten tougher. But IAM, being the lobby of patent litigators, focuses on China instead when it says:

When people talk about Chinese innovation, e-commerce is often among the first subjects to come up. Mobile payments and related technologies are ubiquitous, as anyone knows who’s tried to pay cash for anything in Shenzhen or Beijing recently. So it is not much of a surprise that SIPO patent applications covering business methods are swelling. Policy changes implemented last year point toward continued meteoric growth. For each of the past couple of years, the Japan Patent Office has compiled an update on the status of business method patents in Japan and around the IP Five.

IAM calls this “favourable policy environment”; favourable to whom? Trolls? What about those whom they target? If IAM was to speak honestly, it would rename and the acronym IAM would be expanded to “International Attorneys’ Mind-control”.

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. The EPO (European Patent Office) Under António Campinos is Just Another Battistelli EPO; Still UPC and Software Patents Lobbying

    Campinos has done pretty much nothing but a single blog post since taking Office; it makes one wonder what he's doing all day and whether he ever intends to tackle all the abuses that compelled the Council to replace Battistelli



  2. Cisco v Arista Networks is a Stain on the Reputation of the US International Trade Commission (ITC) and It's Beginning to Recognise This

    Cisco is leveraging software patents which PTAB deemed to be invalid against a much smaller firm (revenue ~30 times smaller), demanding an embargo and bypassing the ordinary routes of justice by turning to the ITC



  3. Openet Has Been Intimidated by Amdocs Using Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit

    Amdocs is still engaging in legal intimidation and litigious bullying against its much smaller rivals/competitors; Openet is the latest reminder of it, having paid an undisclosed amount of money to end the dispute



  4. Federal Circuit Judges Moore, Dyk and Reyna Tell Allergan That It is Not Above the Law

    Allergan and a Native American tribe have lost their ridiculous case; after swapping tens of millions of dollars in pursuit of immunity for patents they've lost again (in what's likely their last resort/appeal); expect the patent microcosm to attempt to distract from it (like they did Oil States)



  5. Links 20/7/2018: MusicBrainz is Back, Microsoft Pushing .NET Through Canonical

    Links for the day



  6. Some US Patents' Quality is So Low That There's a Garden Clearance/Fire Sale

    Rather than shoot worthless patents into orbit where they belong the Allied Security Trust (AST), collector of dubious patents, will try to sell them to gullible opportunists and patent trolls (even if the said patents would likely perish in courts)



  7. When Amplifying the Message of 'Global Innovation Index 2018' IP Watch Sounds Like WIPO and IP Watchdog (Watchtroll)

    In addition to senatorial efforts and misleading debates about patents, we now contend with something called “Global Innovation Index 2018," whose purpose appears to be similar to the debunked Chamber of Commerce's rankings (quantifying everything in terms of patents)



  8. Erosion of Patent Justice in Europe With Kangaroo Courts and Low-Quality European Patents

    The problematic combination of plaintiff-friendly courts (favouring the accuser, just like in Eastern Texas) and low-quality patents that should never have been granted



  9. Mafia Tactics in Team UPC and Battistelli's Circle

    Mafia-like behaviour at the EPO and the team responsible for the Unified Patent Court (UPC); appointments of loyal friends and family members have become common (nepotism and exchange of favours), as have threats made towards critics, authorities, and the press



  10. Australia Says No to Software Patents

    Rokt is now fighting the Australian patent office over its decision to reject software patents; Shelston IP, an Australian patent law firm (originally from Melbourne), already meddles a great deal in such policies/decisions, hoping to overturn them



  11. Links 19/7/2018: Krita 4.1.1, Qt Creator 4.7.0, and Microsoft-Led Lobby Against Android in EU

    Links for the day



  12. IAM is Pushing SEPs/FRAND Agenda for Patent Trolls and Monopolists That Fund IAM

    The front group of patent trolls, IAM, sets up an echo chamber-type event, preceded by all the usual pro-FRAND propaganda



  13. “Trade Secrets” Litigation Rising in the Wake of TC Heartland, Alice, Oil States and Other Patent-Minimising Decisions

    Litigation strategies are evolving in the wake of top-level decisions that rule out software patents, restrict venue shifting, and facilitate invalidation of patents even outside the courtroom



  14. The EPO -- Like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent System -- is an Untenable Mess

    The António Campinos-led EPO, nearly three weeks under his leadership, still fails to commit to justice (court rulings not obeyed), undo union-busting efforts and assure independence of judges; this, among other factors, is why the Office/Organisation and the UPC it wants to manage appear more or less doomed



  15. Links 18/7/2018: System76's Manufacturing Facility, Microsoft-Led Lobby for Antitrust Against Android

    Links for the day



  16. What Patent Lawyers Aren't Saying: Most Patent Litigation Has Become Too Risky to be Worth It

    The lawyers' key to the castle is lost or misplaced; they can't quite find/obtain leverage in courts, but they don't want their clients to know that



  17. Software Patents Royalty (Tax) Campaign by IBM, a Serial Patent Bully, and the EPO's Participation in All This

    The agenda of US-based patent maximalists, including patent trolls and notorious bullies from the United States, is still being served by the 'European' Patent Office, which has already outsourced some of its work (e.g. translations, PR, surveillance) to the US



  18. The European Council Needs to Check Battistelli's Back Room Deals/Back Door/Backchannel With Respect to Christian Archambeau

    Worries persist that Archambeau is about to become an unworthy beneficiary (nepotism) after a Battistelli setup that put Campinos in power, supported by the Belgian delegation which is connected to Archambeau, a national/citizen of Belgium



  19. PTAB and § 101 (Section 101) Have Locked the Patent Parasites Out of the Patent System

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) have contributed a great deal to patent quality and have reduced the number of frivolous patent lawsuits; this means that firms which profit from patent applications and litigation hate it with a passion and still lobby to weaken if not scuttle PTAB



  20. Patents on Computer Software and Plants in the United States Indicative of Systemic Error

    The never-ending expansion of patent scope has meant that patent law firms generally got their way at the patent office; can the courts react fast enough (before confidence in patents and/or public support for patents is altogether shattered)?



  21. Yesterday's Misleading News From Team UPC and Its Aspiring Management of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) enthusiasts — i.e. those looking to financially gain from it — continue to wrestle with logic, manipulate words and misrepresent the law; yesterday we saw many law firms trying to make it sound as though the UPC is coming to the UK even though this isn’t possible and UPC as a whole is likely already dead



  22. Time for the European Commission to Investigate EPO Corruption Because It May be Partly or Indirectly Connected to EU-IPO, an EU Agency

    The passage of the top role at the EU-IPO from António Campinos to Christian Archambeau would damage confidence in the moral integrity of the European Council; back room deals are alleged to have occurred, implicating corrupt Battistelli



  23. Links 17/7/2018: Catfish 1.4.6 Released, ReactOS 0.4.9, Red Hat's GPL Compliance Group Grows

    Links for the day



  24. Links 16/7/2018: Linux 4.18 RC5, Latte Dock v0.8, Windows Back Doors Resurface

    Links for the day



  25. Alliance for US Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) Misleads the US Government, Pretending to Speak for Startups While Spreading Lies for the Patent Microcosm

    In the United States, which nowadays strives to raise the patent bar, the House Small Business Committee heard from technology firms but it also heard from some questionable front groups which claim to support "startups" and "jobs" (but in reality support just patents on the face of it)



  26. 'Blockchain', 'Cloud' and Whatever Else Gets Exploited to Work Around 35 U.S.C. § 101 (or the EPC) and Patent Algorithms/Software

    Looking for a quick buck or some low-quality patents (which courts would almost certainly reject), opportunists carry on with their gold rush, aided by buzzwords and hype over pretty meaningless things



  27. PTAB Defended by the EFF, the R Street Institute and CCIA as the Number of Petitions (IPRs) Continues to Grow

    Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) come to the rescue when patently-bogus patents are used, covering totally abstract concepts (like software patents do); IPRs continue to increase in number and opponents of PTAB, who conveniently cherry-pick Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions, can't quite stop that



  28. IAM/Joff Wild May Have Become a de Facto Media Partner of the Patent Troll iPEL

    Invitation to trolls in China, courtesy of the patent trolls' lobby called "IAM"; this shows no signs of stopping and has become rather blatant



  29. Cautionary Tale: ILO Administrative Tribunal Cases (Appeals) 'Intercepted' Under António Campinos

    The ILO Administrative Tribunal (ILO-AT) is advertised by the EPO's management as access to justice, but it's still being undermined quite severely to the detriment of aggrieved staff



  30. Asking the USPTO to Comply With 35 U.S.C. § 101 is Like Asking Pentagon Officials to Pursue Real, Persistent Peace

    Some profit from selling weapons, whereas others profit from patent grants and litigation; what's really needed right now is patent sanity and adherence to the public interest as well as the law itself, e.g. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions


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