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

08.07.18

PTAB Needs to Expand and Become More Accessible to More Challengers of Wrongly-Granted Patents

Posted in America, Patents at 5:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Unified Patents is a very prolific challenger, but there need to be more

Unified Patents

Summary: Challenges to US patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are helping to raise the bar for litigators; those who value the quality of patents should welcome rather than condemn PTAB and PTAB ought to be expanded to facilitate more scrutiny of granted patents

OUR earlier post about the Federal Circuit took note of the low quality of patents it deals with; the USPTO spent several decades granting low-quality patents which are nowadays less likely to be used in litigation; those that do end up in court often get invalidated at the end.

“Not everybody loves PTAB. In fact, PTAB is loathed by patent bullies, their law firms and pretty much all patent trolls.”What about the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), whose inter partes reviews (IPRs) often end up being assessed by the Federal Circuit (affirming rejections of reviewed patents)? Well, Ex parte Dong-Shin Jung et al was mentioned here last month and was covered by Christopher Francis. It’s “Designated as Informative by PTAB,” according to Francis, which means it will set the tone for future decisions.

PTAB is widely supported by technology firms. John Thorne, who represents many such firms (like the CCIA does), published this article last week on behalf of HTIA. “Today’s patent system is the product of nearly a decade of reform,” he explained, “thanks to which the quality of U.S.-issued patents has gone up and American innovation is flowering. Now a bill is before Congress — H.R. 6264, the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018 — to undo the reforms. It must not happen.

“The reforms were a response to a crisis in the U.S. patent system, but a crisis that did not hit all inventors equally.”

The rest is behind paywall and it’s promoted by United For Patent Reform, another pro-PTAB and anti-trolls front.

Not everybody loves PTAB. In fact, PTAB is loathed by patent bullies, their law firms and pretty much all patent trolls. Sanjana Kapila, a London-based writer for a patent maximalism site, has just said that Uniloc, a very notorious patent troll, “has slipped down the plaintiff rankings” (they’re ranking them like it’s a competition). To quote:

Managing IP reveals the top plaintiffs, defendants and law firms in US patent cases in the first half of 2018, as well as the district breakdown. Uniloc has slipped down the plaintiff rankings, Apple is the top defendant and Stamoulis & Weinblatt has risen to the top of the plaintiff firm rankings

“Apple tops,” according to Kapila, when it comes to IPRs. To quote:

Apple tops – while Google, LG Electronics and Intel climb – the petitioner rankings in the first half. Fundamental Innovation Systems is most targeted patent owner, Fish & Richardson is the top petitioner law firm and Irell & Manella is the top patent owner law firm

There’s also money in IPRs (both sides). So why can’t they learn to coexist with it and accept things have changed? Sure, there’s a lot less money (for lawyers) in IPRs; they prefer lawsuits, but if they care about innovation and patent quality, then they will openly embrace PTAB and stop whining about it. The USPTO seems to be defending PTAB again, based on this upcoming webinar series, which has just been described as follows: “The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will be offering the next webinar in its Patent Quality Chat webinar series from 12:00 to 1:00 pm (ET) on August 14, 2018. In the latest webinar, entitled “AIA Trial Statistics from PTAB and Using AIA Trials to Enhance Patent Examination,” Janet Gongola, Vice Chief Judge for Engagement, Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and Jack Harvey, Assistant Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations, will discuss performance benchmarks of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for America Invents Act (AIA) trials highlighting inter partes reviews (IPRs), and present how programs such as the Post Grant Outcomes program work together to improve patent quality.”

The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO), which opposes patent quality (PTAB, Section 101 and so on), is also planning a webinar; it’s a malicious lobbying group of patent maximalists.

People now have the last chance to tell Iancu to halt his agenda of bringing back software patents (or watering down Section 101), which he had supported and promoted before Trump gave him the job. His words are often spun and he is being manipulated, as we last demonstrated yesterday. Here’s Donald Zuhn providing some background to the Berkheimer memo: “In April, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a memorandum to its Patent Examining Corps discussing changes in examination procedure pertaining to subject matter eligibility in view of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. (see “USPTO Updates Patent Eligibility Guidance in View of Berkheimer”). Following the issuance of the memorandum, the Office also published a notice of the Federal Register seeking public comment on the Office’s subject matter eligibility guidance, and particularly on its guidance in the Berkheimer memorandum.

“The notice, entitled “Request for Comments on Determining Whether a Claim Element Is Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional for Purposes of Subject Matter Eligibility” (83 Fed. Reg. 17536), discusses the Berkheimer decision as well as the Office’s Berkheimer memorandum and sets an August 20, 2018 deadline for the submission of written comments. Those wishing to submit comments can do so by sending them by e-mail to Eligibility2018@uspto.gov. Submitted comments can be viewed here — to date, comments have been submitted by one law firm and five individuals.”

That’s very little. Surprisingly few.

Louis Carbonneau has just published something patently false. He says that “New Guidelines Suggest a Return to Strong Patent Rights” (alluding to something which is still in progress actually). This is false however. Mr. Iancu cannot ignore court rulings. But watch how they exploit his presence (like a brand):

Enter Andrei Iancu, newly appointed director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, who wasted no time attacking this pivotal issue head-on. In his first (and highly anticipated) public speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce on April 11, he left no doubt that he thought the pendulum had swung too far against patent owners and that his priority going forward was to “1. create a new pro-innovation, pro-IP dialogue, and 2. increase the reliability of the patent grant.”

Yesterday Dennis Crouch wrote about an IPR and grounds for rejection thereof:

Standing is an oddball with IPRs. Anyone can file an IPR request and the USPTO will consider that request. The Patent Act directly states that a losing petitioner has a right to appeal if it loses the IPR. (A party “who is dissatisfied with the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board . . . may appeal the Board’s decision . . . to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” 35 U.S.C. § 141(c).) Still, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution requires an actual controversy between the parties — and that the Article III courts cannot offer advisory opinions. A particular element in question for appellate IPR standing is injury-in-fact — “an injury that is both ‘concrete and particularized.’” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016)(non-IPR case).

We hope that anyone — not just competitors or groups like Unified Patents — will be able to file an IPR. There should be no barrier to scrutiny of granted patents. The more challenges, the better. If the patents are valid, then those who were awarded these patents have nothing to fear, right?

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. Links 23/10/2018: Mesa 18.3 Planned, RISC OS Adopts Apache Licence, Mozilla Firefox 63.0 Available

    Links for the day



  2. Microsoft's Patent Troll Intellectual Ventures Still Suing Microsoft's Rivals, Microsoft Gags Its Staff Regarding Patent Matters

    Microsoft says it's pursuing "truce"; the patent trolls it has created and backed (Bill Gates still backs them at a personal capacity) feel differently



  3. The EPO Under António Campinos Has Opened More Doors to Software Patents and Only Litigators Are Happy

    António Campinos continues Battistelli's tradition of shredding the Convention on the Grant of European Patents (EPC); it's all about generating as much assertion (e.g. litigation, shakedown) activity as possible, serving to bring Europe's productive industries to a halt



  4. German Court on UPC Constitutional Complaint: “No Oral Hearing is Currently Scheduled. A Decision Date is Not Foreseeable at Present.”

    More bad news for Team UPC as there's no sign of Germany signing/ratifying the UPCA and none of the underlying issues (noted in the complaint) have been addressed at all



  5. Links 22/10/2018: New Kernel Release and Linus Torvalds is Back in Charge

    Links for the day



  6. Lack of Patent Quality Means Lack of Patent Validity and Lack of Legal Certainty

    35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) -- like the European Patent Convention (EPC) on the Grant of European Patents -- stresses patent quality and scope; will patent offices get things right before it's too late or too expensive to undo?



  7. Data Engine Technologies (DET) Just One Among Many Microsoft-Connected Patent Trolls That Pick on Microsoft's Biggest Competitors

    Lawyers' articles/blog posts continue to obscure the fact that Data Engine Technologies is merely a satellite or unit (one among many) of patent trolling giant Acacia Research Corp., connected to Microsoft and sporting a long history of lawsuits against GNU/Linux



  8. Alice/Mayo and Hatch-Influenced US Patent Office

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seems to be serving those who pay the most to define the scope or limits of patenting; this means that even nature and life are being 'privatised' (or turned into someone's "intellectual" property)



  9. Funded by the Public to Prey on the Public: The Absurdity of Patent Sales and 'Enforcement' by Government

    Government or US Government-funded entities are looking to tax private companies using patents that were actually funded by the public; in practice this helps private firms or insiders (individuals) personally gain from something that the public subsidised and should thus be in the public domain



  10. Lockpath Patents Demonstrate That the US Patent Office -- Unlike US Courts -- Keeps Ignoring 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice

    35 U.S.C. § 101 isn’t being entirely followed by examiners of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO); in fact, evidence suggests that mathematics are still becoming monopolies of private firms — something which should never happen



  11. The Eastern District of Texas and Its Patent Trolls Affinity Not a Solved Issue

    The American patent system continues to distribute monopolies on algorithms and some of these cause litigation to reach courts that are notorious for intolerance of 35 U.S.C. § 101, resulting in unnecessary payments to lawyers and patent trolls



  12. More 'Blockchain' Nonsense in Pursuit of Bogus, Nonsensical Software Patents

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is still granting abstract software patents because words like "blockchain" get mentioned in the applications; companies that do this hope to shield themselves from disruptive technology and possibly facilitate future patent blackmail



  13. A Warning About MPEG-G, the Latest Software Patents Trap That Threatens Innovation Everywhere

    Combining patents on software and on life, MPEG-G assembles a malicious pool with malignant ramifications for bioinformatics



  14. MIT and the Prior Art Archive Perpetuate Existing Problems

    Large companies with many tens of thousands of patents (each) would have us believe that broadening access/reach of prior art (e.g. to patent examiners) would solve the issues; This may very well work for these large companies, but it overlooks the broader picture



  15. Links 20/10/2018: Mesa 18.2.3 Released, FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 1

    Links for the day



  16. Unified Patents Demolishes Some More Notorious Patent Trolls and Offers Bounties to Take Down More of Them

    Even though the new management of the US patent office treats patent trolls as a non-issue, groups that represent technology firms work hard to improve things (except for the litigation zealots)



  17. The Identity Crisis of the European Patent Office, Wrongly Believing It Exists to Serve Lawyers and Patent Trolls Outside Europe

    The European Patent Office doesn’t even feel like it’s European anymore; it’s just an international patent office that happens to be based (primarily) in Munich; insiders and outsiders alike need to ask themselves what these ‘European’ officials (employing firms outside Europe) have turned the Office into



  18. Links 19/10/2018: OpenBSD 6.4 and OpenSSH 7.9 Released

    Links for the day



  19. Ingve Björn Stjerna Has Just Warned That If Team UPC and the European Patent Office Rigged the Proceedings of the German Constitutional Court, Consequences Would be Significant

    The EPO is back to mentioning the Unified Patent Court and it keeps making it abundantly clear that it is only working for the litigation 'industry' rather than for science and technology (or "innovation" as they like to euphemise it)



  20. Links 18/10/2018: New Ubuntu and Postgres

    Links for the day



  21. It's Almost 2019 and Team UPC is Still Pretending Unitary Patent (UPC) Exists, Merely Waiting for Britain to Join

    Refusing to accept that the Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA) has reached its death or is at a dead end, UPC proponents — i.e. lawyers looking to profit from frivolous litigation — resort to outright lies and gymnastics in logic/intellectual gymnastics



  22. IAM and IP Kat Are Still Megaphones of Battistelli and His Agenda

    IAM reaffirms its commitment to corrupt Battistelli and IP Kat maintains its stance, which is basically not caring at all about EPO corruption (to the point of actively deleting blog comments that mention such corruption, i.e. 'sanitising' facts)



  23. The EPO Under António Campinos Relaxes the Rules on Software Patenting and the Litigation 'Industry' Loves That

    EPO management, which is nontechnical, found new terms by which to refer to software patents -- terms that even the marketing departments can endorse (having propped them up); they just call it all AI, augmented intelligence and so on



  24. Links 17/10/2018: Elementary OS 5.0 “Juno” Released, MongoDB’s Server Side Public Licence

    Links for the day



  25. Improving US Patent Quality Through Reassessments of Patents and Courts' Transparency

    Transparency in US courts and more public participation in the patent process (examination, litigation etc.) would help demonstrate that many patents are being granted — and sometimes asserted — that are totally bunk, bogus, fake



  26. Ask OIN How It Intends to Deal With Microsoft Proxies Such as Patent Trolls

    OIN continues to miss the key point (or intentionally avoid speaking about it); Microsoft is still selling 'protection' from the very same patent trolls that it is funding, arming, and sometimes even instructing (who to pass patents to and sue)



  27. Links 1610/2018: Linux 4.19 RC8, Xfce Screensaver 0.1.0 Released

    Links for the day



  28. Judge-Bashing Tactics, Undermining PTAB, and Iancu's Warpath for the Litigation and Insurance 'Industries'

    Many inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) leverage 35 U.S.C. § 101 against software patents; instead of putting an end to such patents Director Iancu decides to just serve the 'industry' he came from (a meta-industry where his firm had worked for Donald Trump)



  29. 'Cloud', 'AI' and Other Buzzwords as Excuses for Granting Fake Patents on Software

    With resurgence of rather meaningless terms like so-called 'clouds' (servers/hosting) and 'AI' (typically anything in code which does something clever, including management of patents) the debate is being shifted away from 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Section 101); but courts would still see past such façade



  30. Corporate Media's Failure to Cover Patents Properly and Our New Hosting Woes

    A status update about EPO affairs and our Web host's plan to shut down (as a whole) very soon, leaving us orphaned or having to pay heavy bills


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