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

07.22.18

Cherry-Picking Dissenting Opinions on Patent Cases the Last/Latest Resort for Patent Maximalists

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 9:45 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

From celebrating PTAB overturning examiners’ rejections (which are rare) to celebrating opinions that are more like appendices

Dissenting opinion
Reference: Dissenting opinion

Summary: Patent maximalists have run out of substantial things to celebrate, seeing that PTAB and CAFC aren’t too interested in looking more deeply at abstract patents, such as software patents

THE Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) help review/reassess patents granted by the USPTO. In other words, they’re a quality assurance mechanism. Why would anyone object to high quality?

The firm Unified Patents typically files IPRs on behalf of multiple parties that are on the receiving end of patent lawsuits, usually but not always filed by patent trolls (because they pick on many targets, that’s their business model). Here is PTAB weighing in on the patent troll Iron Oak, which we mentioned here before. The outcome so far is more of the usual:

On July 17, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 5,966,658 owned and asserted by Iron Oak Technologies, LLC, a well-known NPE. The ’658 patent, generally directed to mobile communications (and more particularly to the automated selection of a communication path), has been asserted in 23 district court cases against such companies as Samsung, Lenovo, Huawei, and Dell. At the time of this decision, the ’658 was at issue in 11 active district court cases.

CAFC typically affirms, so if PTAB says no to a patent it will typically be the final word (no overturning on appeal). In many cases CAFC declines to review a decision without even issuing an opinion (as it would not scale).

“CAFC typically affirms, so if PTAB says no to a patent it will typically be the final word (no overturning on appeal).”Patent maximalist Richard Lloyd says that the Federal Circuit (CAFC) deals with an IPR filed by RPX, mentioning Unified Patents along the way too:

The ability of the likes of RPX and Unified Patents to file inter partes reviews (IPRs) against patents that have been asserted against their members in district court has been called into question by a recent decision from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). 
In the case, RPX filed an IPR against two patents owned by the NPE Applications in Internet Time. Those grants were part of ongoing infringement litigation between AIT and the defendant Salesforce, which is an RPX member. 
RPX filed the three IPRs more than a year after AIT filed its suit against Salesforce.

Patent maximalists generally dislike PTAB and hope that CAFC will magically put an end to it, seeing that SCOTUS was overwhelmingly supportive in Oil States. The cherry-picking thus continues. Yesterday, citing a CAFC opinion (not decision), Mr. Gross went into all caps mode: “CAN I GET AMEN #PATENT ATTORNEY BROTHERS! “The ‘abstract ideas’ idea, when used for denying a claimed invention’s patent eligibility either before or after a patent is issued, cannot thus function as a valid rule of law. [] Plager: “With the rise of software and business method patents, the ‘abstract idea’ became a weapon of choice for summary execution of what many decried as ‘bad’ patents. The problem is that it does not distinguish good from ill in any coherent sense” http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-2502.Opinion.7-20-2018.pdf …”

“Are these people cherry-picking opinions rather than decisions now?”As Judith Szepesi rightly pointed out: “Sadly just Judge Plager’s opinion, not the majority. It indeed is an “incoherent body of doctrine.” What’s abstract about displaying data on two screens? That seems pretty concrete, doesn’t it? Maybe not novel, but certainly not “a mathematical function” or its equivalent.”

Henrion then said, “it is just abstract computer program giving instructions to a programmable apparatus.”

“I can implement in hardware,” said the response. “Does that make it non-abstract? Or do you just not believe in patents?”

Loaded statement. There’s a difference between opposing software patents and opposing patents as a whole/in general.

“IP” people need to study computer science before commenting on software patents as applying software to “device” (e.g. screen) does not change the fact that it’s merely an algorithm.

“About a year ago these patent boosters were obsessing over relatively rare cases wherein PTAB was vetoing examiner rejections based upon Section 101; they now obsess over non-binding opinions.”“So, so sad that that is in a dissent,” another “IP” person wrote.

Remember the dissent from CAFC Judge Pauline Newman, who sides with Microsoft in a PTAB IPR. Are these people cherry-picking opinions rather than decisions now? Speaking of Microsoft, there’s this update; it’s the latest in a patent case of HoloTouch, Inc. v Microsoft Corporation. “The court denied the parties’ stipulated motion to vacate an earlier order partially granting defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim even though the parties’ settlement was contingent on vacatur,” Docket Navigator said just before the weekend.

Anyway, the bottom line seems clear to us. About a year ago these patent boosters were obsessing over relatively rare cases wherein PTAB was vetoing examiner rejections based upon Section 101; they now obsess over non-binding opinions. How about next year? Will they obsess over what some examiner said to a colleague? What really matters is what SCOTUS, CAFC, District Courts, PTAB, USPTO officials and examiners say in their line of duty (and in that order). As things stand, Section 101 is strong, patent litigation is down sharply and so on.

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 Linux Foundation's Business Model

    The Linux Foundation's plan, illustrated



  2. Links 18/6/2019: i386 Abandoned by Canonical and a New osquery 'Community'

    Links for the day



  3. Indifference or Even Hostility Towards Patent Quality Results in Grave Injustice

    The patent extravaganza in Europe harms small businesses the most (they complain about it), but administrative staff at patent offices only cares about the views of prolific applicants rather than the interests of citizens in respective countries



  4. Links 18/6/2019: CentOS 8 Coming Soon, DragonFly BSD 5.6 Released

    Links for the day



  5. 'AI Taskforce' is Actually a Taskforce for Software Patents

    The mainstream media has been calling just about everything "HEY HI!" (AI), but what it typically refers to is a family of old algorithms being applied in possibly new areas; patent maximalists in eastern Asia and the West hope that this mainstream media's obsession can be leveraged to justify new kinds of patents on code



  6. Patent Maximalism is Dead in the United States

    Last-ditch efforts, or a desperate final attempt to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101, isn't succeeding; stacked panels are seen for what they really are and 35 U.S.C. § 101 isn't expected to change



  7. Links 18/6/2019: Linux 5.2 RC5 and OpenMandriva Lx 4

    Links for the day



  8. Weaponising Russophobia Against One's Critics

    Response to smears and various whispering campaigns whose sole purpose is to deplete the support base for particular causes and people; these sorts of things have gotten out of control in recent years



  9. When the EPO is Run by Politicians It's Expected to Be Aggressive and Corrupt Like Purely Political Establishments

    António 'Photo Op' Campinos will have marked his one-year anniversary in July; he has failed to demonstrate morality, respect for the law, understanding of the sciences, leadership by example and even the most basic honesty (he lies a lot)



  10. Links 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  11. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  12. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  13. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  14. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  15. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  16. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  17. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  18. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  19. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  20. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  21. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  22. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  23. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  24. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  25. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  26. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  27. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  28. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  29. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  30. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day


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

Recent Posts