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

08.06.18

Agenda and Lies From Watchtroll Make It Into the Bill of Rohrabacher, the “Inventor Protection Act”

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 12:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Watchtroll Great Again

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is being demonised using falsehoods or patently false numbers, which are pushed into various news feeds by the anti-PTAB lobby (representing the interests of patent trolls and aggressors as well as their lawyers)

THE LOBBYING fronts of patent maximalists, those who attack judges and USPTO officials, seem to have accomplished something.

According to Josh Landau (CCIA), lies from Watchtroll are making it into legislation efforts, in the same ways that lies from IAM make it into the EPO‘s Web site. So a villainous site that acts as a front group of patent extremists ended up being used by dishonest politicians whom patent extremists use to perturb the law. To quote Landau:

The Rohrabacher bill appears to be relying upon IP Watchdog’s numbers here. (This isn’t the first time incorrect numbers from IP Watchdog have made it to Congress.) The PTAB is not invalidating 85% of patents challenged in post-grant reviews. In calculating the rate at which patents are invalidated in post-grant reviews, IP Watchdog excludes the significant number of patents where the PTAB said that not only is this patent valid, but it is so clearly valid that the petitioner hasn’t even been able to show a reasonable likelihood of invalidity—the roughly 35% of patents where the PTAB doesn’t institute a review at all.

Once those patents are included, what’s the real answer?

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board declares around 45% of challenged patents to be invalid. Given that challengers pick and choose which patents they want to challenge based on the likelihood of success, that number isn’t surprising at all—the patents where validity isn’t really in question never get challenged in the first place.

Claiming that the PTAB invalidates 85% of granted patents it reviews is simply false.

[...]

Another error in the proposed findings is that “most inventors cannot afford the costs of defending a patent challenged in a single post-grant review, as these costs can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

First off, this ignores that roughly 80% of patents are invented at large companies. Those inventors and their companies can afford the costs of defending a patent challenge. The findings claim to be about inventors, but exclude the vast majority of American inventors.

It is correct that the cost of a post-grant review can reach hundreds of thousands of dollars. AIPLA’s survey estimates a median price of around $250,000 to defend a patent in a post-grant review.

But you can’t look at that in a vacuum. Post-grant reviews are almost always filed against patents that are being litigated—85% of post-grant challenges have related district court litigation (and many of the other 15% are related to litigations more indirectly). And litigation costs far, far more—even an inexpensive litigation can easily run into seven figures. In reality, the availability of IPR and other post-grant reviews has actually saved patent owners more than $1 billion in legal fees since it was made available by reducing the cost of litigating patents overall.

[...]

The bill also states that “Inventors are denied the fundamental right to ‘exclude others’.” This finding is made despite recent decisions like Tinnus v. Telebrands in which an inventor was not only granted an injunction but a preliminary injunction. In reality, inventors can exclude others in the same circumstances that they can do so in every area of law—when they meet the traditional common law test for an injunction.

Far from restoring a fundamental right, Rohrabacher’s bill criticizes the long-standing principle that injunctions issue when appropriate, not whenever they’re asked for.

Landau continued in the second part the following day. Some relevant portion:

The next provision is by far the most concerning in the entire bill. Normally there’s a bit of hyperbole involved when someone says “this bill would destroy the incentive to innovate.” In the case of Rohrabacher’s bill, that’s not hyperbole—it’s simple math.

That’s because, if the Inventor Protection Act passes, inventors would be entitled to the greater of total profits or 25 percent of gross sales revenue attributable to the patent.

As a little history lesson, utility patents used to allow a total profits remedy. Congress abolished that in 1946, after realizing that a total profits rule was unworkable with the complex technology of the time. Technology has gotten more complicated since 1946, which makes it unclear why reviving the total profits rule is a good idea now.

But total profits isn’t the worst part of this provision. The worst part is entitling inventors to “25 percent of sales.” That means that, if a product infringed 4 patents, the manufacturer could be liable for every dollar they had ever received in sales.1

To put that in perspective, Apple lost a patent lawsuit a few months ago. They were ordered to pay $500 million dollars to VirnetX for their use of 4 patents, covering FaceTime, iMessage, and VPN on Demand. That’s a big verdict.

But if the inventors had owned those patents at the time of suit, Apple might instead have had to pay over $200 billion dollars. I don’t think anyone would call that the right outcome.

While the inventors had transferred their patents by that point, VirnetX could easily have sought out the inventors and sold them their patents back with the promise of a delayed payment back to VirnetX if the inventors won the lawsuit. Similar tactics have been used before in what’s known as “privateering,” and VirnetX may itself be the result of a privateering arrangement. In addition, VirnetX could have transferred the patents but funded the litigation, with the inventors agreeing to pay VirnetX back with interest or with a percentage of their winnings—another common arrangement called litigation finance.

Given the ease with which an NPE could take advantage of these benefits that were designed to accrue to inventors, there’s every reason to think they would do exactly that.

And when 4 patents can wipe out not just every bit of profit you made but actually eliminate every last bit of revenue? There’s no reason to create anything new in the U.S. anymore. If you’re worried about competition from China, the last thing you want to do is create a rule that ensures that creating complex technology in the U.S. is almost guaranteed to be unprofitable.

There’s also something of relevance to this in Patent Docs, a PTAB-hostile site. James Korenchan and this patent maximalists’ site explore the possibility of disguising software patents as “GUI” to bypass the law and patent software anyway (post-Alice/Section 101). Nitpicking an examiner-level ‘case’ (it’s not even a case), Korenchan wrote:

Navigating the post-Alice patent-eligibility landscape with graphical user interface (GUI) claims can be trying, particularly when fighting to maintain desirable breadth. As with all software-related claims, limitations must raise GUI claims (and other types of UI claims, for that matter) beyond fundamental designs and implementations, root the invention in computer technology, and provide a specific, innovative solution to a technological problem. In the past four years, the Federal Circuit has provided some guidance for GUI claims, perhaps most notable being the recent Core Wireless decision. In Core Wireless, the Court essentially stated that, to overcome the scrutiny of 35 U.S.C. § 101, a GUI claim should describe the specific functionality and/or layout of the GUI, and in addition, the patent’s specification should describe in detail the advantages of the GUI functionality and/or layout over existing methods and designs.

[...]

But the Board concluded that the Examiner’s characterization was proper because “different levels of abstraction” can be applied in an Alice step-one analysis. Unfortunately, the Appellants’ arguments with regard to step two were relatively lacking, and the Board concluded that the Appellants did not identify or provide supporting explanation for additional elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Instead, the Appellants restated the above-noted improvements to the field of documenting and billing medical procedures, and then proceeded to unsuccessfully argue that the claimed features are not well understood, routine, and conventional because there was no prior art rejection of claim 1. The Board very quickly dismissed these arguments. Had the Appellants cited to the specification in step two and tied described advantages to particular claim limitations, they might have set themselves off on a better foot with the Board (and possibly with the Examiner), though it is difficult to say whether this would have been persuasive.

[...]

In rejecting this claim, the Examiner argued that the claims were directed to an abstract idea of “determining the acceptability of a determined sample score that is based on determined document scores of audited medical documents.” In response, the Appellants contended that the claims recite specific UI elements (e.g., a GUI wizard and an X-bar chart analysis) that define a specific user experience. Analogizing to the claims in Core Wireless, the Board sided with the Appellants, finding the claim to be directed to an improved GUI wizard and specifically identifying steps [2], [5], [6], and [11] of the claim as sufficiently inventive features. Notably, the Board emphasized how these and other claimed steps are described in detail in the specification along with details as to how the steps, as well as the GUI layout, help a user audit coded medical documents. The Board stopped its analysis after step one, concluded that the claims are patent eligible, and reversed the Examiner’s rejection.

The anti-PTAB lobby is quite well funded and it will do whatever it can to work around PTAB, knowing that the SCOTUS supports PTAB and the Federal Circuit almost always agrees with PTAB.

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. From the Eastern District of Texas (US) to Australia Patent Quality Remains a Problem

    Patents on anything from thoughts to nature/life (in the US and in Australia, respectively) demonstrate the wildly wide range (or spectrum) of patents nowadays granted irrespective of their impact on innovation



  2. Alice/35 U.S.C. § 101 and PTAB Are Here to Stay and Even Their Critics (Patent Maximalists) Have Come to Accept That

    Taking stock of the latest PTAB news and rants; the latter has become scarce because efforts to undermine PTAB have all failed



  3. Patent Trolls Roundup: Conversant Wireless Licensing (Formerly Core Wireless) and Blackbird 'Technologies' Still Prey on Real Companies

    A quick recap of recent decisions and motions, which serve to show that patent trolls can be beaten, avoided, and sometimes even 'disarmed'



  4. Links 19/8/2018: Skrooge 2.15.0, Wine 3.14, End of Akademy 2018

    Links for the day



  5. David Ruschke, the PTAB's Chief, is Moving So the Patent Maximalists Push Their Anti-PTAB Agenda

    As the chief judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) moves elsewhere at the USPTO there are those who hope that a replacement will undo PTAB inter partes reviews (IPRs), which generally improve the quality of granted patents



  6. If David Chiles Turned the USPTO Into a 'Microsoft Shop' That Might Explain Three Days (or More) of Outages

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is having profound technical issues; some already point their fingers at David Chiles, alleged to have been hired/promoted for the wrong reasons



  7. Links 17/8/2018: GNU/Linux From ASUS, Debian at 25, Lubuntu Plans

    Links for the day



  8. Links 16/8/2018: MAAS 2.4.1, Mesa 18.2 RC3

    Links for the day



  9. USPTO Craziness: Changing Rules to Punish PTAB Petitioners and Reward Microsoft for Corruption at ISO

    The US patent office proposes charging/imposing on applicants that are not customers of Microsoft a penalty; there’s also an overtly and blatantly malicious move whose purpose is to discourage petitions against wrongly-granted (by the USPTO) patents



  10. The Demise of US Software Patents Continues at the Federal Circuit

    Software patents are rotting away in the United States; it remains to be seen when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will truly/fully honour 35 U.S.C. § 101 and stop granting such patents



  11. Almost Two Months After the ILO Ruling Staff Representative Brumme is Finally Back on the Job at EPO

    Ion Brumme gets his position at the EPO back, owing to the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILO-AT) ruling back in July; things, however, aren't rosy for the Office as a whole



  12. Links 15/8/2018: Akademy 2018 Wrapups and More Intel Defects

    Links for the day



  13. Antiquated Patenting Trick: Adding Words Like 'Apparatus' to Make Abstract Ideas Look/Sound Like They Pertain to or Contain a 'Device'

    35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101) still maintains that abstract ideas are not patent-eligible; so applicants and law firms go out of their way to make their ideas seem as though they're physical



  14. Open Invention Network (OIN) Member Companies Need to Become Unanimous in Opposition to Software Patents

    Opposition to abstract software patents, which even the SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit nowadays reject, would be strategically smart for OIN; but instead it issues a statement in support of a GPL compliance initiative



  15. President Battistelli 'Killed' the EPO; António Campinos Will 'Finish the Job'

    The EPO is shrinking, but this is being shrewdly disguised using terms like "efficiency" and a low-profile President who keeps himself in the dark



  16. Links 14/8/2018: Virtlyst 1.2.0, Blender 2.8 Planning Update, Zorin OS 12.4, FreeBSD 12.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  17. Berkheimer Changed Nothing and Invalidation Rates of Abstract Software Patents Remain Very High

    Contrary to repetitive misinformation from firms that 'sell' services around patents, there is no turnaround or comeback for software patents; the latest numbers suggest a marginal difference at best — one that may be negligible considering the correlation between expected outcomes and actions (the nature of risk analysis)



  18. Lockton Insurance Brokers Exploiting Patent Trolls to Sell Insurance to the Gullible

    Demonstrating what some people have dubbed (and popularised) "disaster capitalism", Lockton now looks for opportunities to profit from patent trolls, in the form of "insurance" (the same thing Microsoft does)



  19. Patent Lawyers Writing Patent Law for Their Own Enrichment Rather Than for Innovation

    We have become detached from the original goals and come to the point where patent offices aren't necessarily run by people qualified for the job of advancing science and technology; they, unlike judges, only seem to care about how many patents get granted, irrespective of their quality/merit



  20. Links 13/8/2018: Linux 4.18 and GNU Linux-libre 4.18 Arrive

    Links for the day



  21. PTAB is Loathed by Patent Maximalists Because It Can Potentially Invalidate Thousands of Software Patents (More Than Courts Can Handle)

    The US patent system has become more resistant to software patents; courts, however, are still needed to invalidate such patents (a potentially expensive process) because the USPTO continues to grant these provided some fashionable buzzwords/hype waves are utilised (e.g. "facial recognition", "blockchain", "autonomous vehicles")



  22. Gene Quinn and 'Dallas Innovates' as Couriers of Agenda for Patent Trolls Like iPEL

    Failing to hide their real purpose and malicious agenda, sites whose real purpose is to promote a lot of patent litigation produce puff pieces, even for patently unethical trolls such as iPEL



  23. Software Patents, Secured by 'Smart' and 'Intelligent' Tricks, Help Microsoft and Others Bypass Alice/Section 101

    A look at the use of fashionable trends and buzzwords to acquire and pass around dubious software patents, then attempting to guard these from much-needed post-Alice scrutiny



  24. Keep Boston (and Massachusetts in General) From Becoming an Infestation Zone for Patent Litigation

    Boston, renowned for research and innovation, has become somewhat of a litigation hotbed; this jeopardises the state's attractiveness (except perhaps to lawyers)



  25. Links 12/8/2018: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Mesa 18.1.6 Release Notice, New Linux Imminent

    Links for the day



  26. Thomas Massie's “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA) Would Put the US Patent System in the Lions' (or Trolls') Mouth Again

    An anti-§ 101 and anti-PTAB bill from Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) strives to remove quality control; but by handing the system back to patent trolls he and his proponents simply strive to create more business of litigation, at the expense of innovation



  27. EPO-Style Problem-Solution: Tackling Backlog by Granting Lots of Low-Quality (Bogus) European Patents, Causing a Surge in Troll/Frivolous Litigation

    The EPO's lack of interest in genuine patent quality (measuring "quality" in terms of speed, not actual quality) may mean nothing but a litigation epidemic; many of these lawsuits would be abusive, baseless; those harmed the most would be small businesses that cannot afford a legal defense and would rather settle with those who exploit questionable patents, notably patent trolls



  28. Links 11/8/2018: PGP Clean Room 1.0, Ring-KDE 3.0.0, Julia 1.0

    Links for the day



  29. Propaganda Sites of Patent Trolls and Litigators Have Quit Trying to Appear Impartial or Having Integrity

    The lobbying groups of patent trolls (which receive money from such trolls) carry on meddling in policy and altering perception that drives policy; we present some new examples



  30. Months After Oil States the Patent Maximalists Still Try to Undermine Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”), Refusing to Accept Patent Quality

    The patent maximalists in the United States, seeing that the USPTO is moving away from patent maximalism, is desperate for a turnaround; prominent patent maximalists take it all out on PTAB


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