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

08.11.18

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

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 3:28 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Patent maximalism would gradually corrode if not doom the patent system, making US patents obsolete and lawsuits frivolous

3 big cats

Summary: 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

THE Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), typically affirmed by the Federal Circuit and largely defended by management of the USPTO, which is more than just Iancu, is a little bit like the appeal boards at the EPO. The job of PTAB is assuring quality of patents. PTAB is used to stop or prevent frivolous patent litigation with abstract patents — something which increasingly happens in Europe, as we've just noted.

Earlier this month PTAB accomplished the following thing, which was celebrated yesterday by Unified Patents. Mr. Jain wrote:

On August 3, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) terminated IPR2017-01672 pursuant to a joint request filed by Quantum Stream Inc. (a subsidiary of XpresSpa, AKA Form Holdings) and Unified Patents. U.S. Patent 9,047,626, the subject of the IPR petition, relates to systems for delivering content, such as a digital video program, to a user device.

This is seemingly a software patent. It should not have been granted. But patent maximalists beg to differ; they mislead the media and mislead politicians about this. Only days ago Odessa American celebrated with the “Cult of Patents” as if “innovation” and “patent” (monopoly) are the same thing (see “Marketing Evolution Awarded Patent Recognition for Latest Innovation”), not to mention spin with “Smart…Smart…Smarter” in headlines such as this new article’s headline. Sadly, these patent maximalists still have a grip on the media. Rep. Thomas Massie wants to make a mess of the US patent system [1, 2, 3] and the media helps him promote his new bill, “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018” (RALIA). It’s a misnomer (should say “Litigation”, not “Innovation”), as Josh Landau (CCIA) has just explained, arguing that “RALIA Would Take Us Back To The Patent Law Stone Age” because:

At the end of June, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the “Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018,” H.R. 6264 (RALIA). RALIA, rather than restoring American innovation, aims to overturn the advances in American patent law that help protect innovation. Last week, I addressed Rep. Rohrabacher’s ‘Inventor Protection Act’ (IPA) [1][2], and I’ve previously covered the STRONGER Patents Act[1][2]. Now we can turn to the third member of this group of anti-innovation bills, RALIA.

Here’s the gist of it. The AIA? Gone. Decades of court decisions fine-tuning the balance between the patent reward and the impacts of the government-granted monopoly that a patent represents? Gone. RALIA even gets rid of the 18 month publication rule, which makes no sense if you want to promote progress—it only matters when it comes to promoting patents, a fact the bill actually admits.

[...]

RALIA includes an amendment to § 101 as well. This amendment appears to be based on the IPO and AIPLA proposals, which Patent Progress has covered in the past.[1][2]. The basic idea? Let’s make everything patentable, no matter if it would prevent anyone from accessing a basic scientific building block or represents nothing more than an abstract idea stripped of any structure.

These proposals come from interest groups that claim that § 101 “is not meant to provide the standard for deciding whether a particular technical advance should receive patent protection.” But that statement is wrong—that’s exactly what § 101 is for. And I’m not alone in this view. Back in June, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu agreed, describing § 101 as a determination of “what specifically, as a country, do we want to exclude from patenting.” There’s active discussion on what falls into that category, but it simply isn’t serious for AIPLA to suggest that § 101 isn’t intended to prevent certain types of patents.

As Patent Progress stated when these proposals first came out, they don’t promote progress, just patents that will block basic research and overbroad patents that claim an abstract idea. The only beneficiaries will be those who assert low-quality patents; it certainly won’t benefit progress of the useful arts.

RALIA is still being promoted in some media circles, we’re assuming at the behest of law firms. Those who value innovation in the US know that PTAB and § 101 aren’t the problems; they’re part of the solution.

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

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: The Patent Trolls’ Lobby, Bristows and IAM Among Others, Downplays Darts-IP/IP2Innovate Report About Rising If Not Soaring Troll Activity in Europe

SCSI

Summary: 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

THE decline/demise of patent quality at the Munich-based patent office isn’t just an hypothesis; firms and examiners speak about it. They’re concerned. They even pen open letters with many signatures. Sometimes petitions. They rightly worry and they understand the long-term ramifications, knowing that the Munich-based patent office (other locations too) relies on its reputation and the high legal certainty once associated with patents assessed to be awarded/granted. Those who understand how the patent system works (either as examiners or law firms’ staff) want what’s best not only for themselves but also for their country/ies. As we last stressed a few days ago, patent maximalism is generally a threat to the entire patent system. Greed can cause the entire thing to collapse.

“…patent maximalism is generally a threat to the entire patent system. Greed can cause the entire thing to collapse.”Frivolous litigation is nowadays being reported in Europe; we privately hear some stories and the EPO is to blame. “Opposition proceedings in the EPO are currently under appeal to the Technical Bureau of Appeal (“TBA”),” say Matheson’s Michael Finn and Deirdre Kilroy. It’s about Ireland. Yesterday they wrote:

The Irish Commercial Court has departed from a long standing precedent and refused to suspend national patent revocation proceedings whilst parallel opposition proceedings are ongoing in the European Patents Office (the “EPO”). This has the potential to result in an increase in litigating national patents devolved from European patents in Ireland. In this article, IP litigator Michael Finn highlights some of the key aspects of the decision.

[...]

On 31 July 2018, the Court refused to suspend the entire proceedings. The Court suspended the trial until late 2019. However, in a departure from previous Irish case law, the Court directed that all pre-trial steps in the proceedings should go ahead.

[...]

In deciding to suspend the trial until November 2019, the Court was influenced by the prospect that the EPO proceedings could potentially be resolved completely within 12 months, and the potential waste of court resources would outweigh other considerations.

Some of these European Patents should never have been granted in the first place. Once granted, they can form the basis for frivolous lawsuits, causing a lot of trouble and costing a fortune.

We have always been particularly concerned about software patents. The USPTO moves away from software patents, whereas the EPO is actively promoting software patents in Europe (several times per day lately; it got worse after António Campinos had taken over).

“They’re “politely” if not “silently” destroying what used to be the world’s best patent office.”FB Rice’s Eddie Walker, Jeremy Dobbin, Madeleine Kelly, Steve Gledhill, Andrea Ruhrmann, Will Morgan and Toby Thompson now have this new article. It is about Australia, which disallows software patents, imitating Europe’s loopholes rather than be inspired by Alice (SCOTUS). Does Australia not know that the EPO does not follow European law, EPC etc.? They’re alluding to what’s often used as a ‘trick’ by which to patent algorithms.

To quote:

A new consultation regarding legislation that will change the way inventive step is considered for Australian patents has been announced, with the intention being to raise the threshold by aligning with European standards. In future, the EPO “problem-solution” test will usually be adopted when assessing inventive step in Australia, which is a different assessment from the lower level problem-solution assessment currently used here.

It remains to be seen whether other aspects of the European inventive step assessment will also be imported into Australian practice. A principal reason for the current difference in standards is that the circumstances under which two prior art documents can validly be mosaicked to sustain an obviousness attack are much broader in Europe. Unless this aspect of Australian practice also changes, the legislative amendments may not have as significant an effect as desired.

[...]

Whilst an EPO-style problem-solution approach may become the norm for assessing inventive step in Australia, the Draft Explanatory Memorandum sets out that there will be flexibility to adopt other tests in some circumstances.[ix] This is also welcome, since although the rigid approach of the EPO in following problem-solution provides relative legal certainty, it is not necessarily the best approach for all situations.

The approach of “problem-solution” is, in our humble assessment, unhelpful. It dodges underlying tests like Section 101 in the US — a subject which we’ll explore again later this weekend. The most distressing thing is Campinos and his silence on these matters; there’s zero transparency, zero accountability and almost zero words from Campinos. They’re “politely” if not “silently” destroying what used to be the world’s best patent office. In the process they harm European firms.

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts