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

09.25.18

Technology Groups and Innovators Bemoan Attempts to Override the Courts to Promote Patent Maximalists’ Agenda by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

Posted in America, Patents at 6:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Give me liberty

Summary: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not listening to the views of actual innovators; it seems to be serving just the patent and litigation ‘industry’ (i.e. those who profit from illegitimate patents and baseless lawsuits)

THE EPO was run by a corrupt tyrant for 8 years; he left his loyal compatriot in charge. At the USPTO, by contrast, a technical person (Michelle Lee) ran the Office for a number of years, undoing decades of injustice. Unlike lawyers or politicians or bankers (Iancu, Battistelli and Campinos, respectively), she persistently backed the appeal boards, which at the US are known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a relatively new construct that deals with inter partes reviews (IPRs), typically invalidating bogus patents using 35 U.S.C. § 101, inspired by the highest court in the United States.

“Unlike lawyers or politicians or bankers (Iancu, Battistelli and Campinos, respectively), she persistently backed the appeal boards, which at the US are known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a relatively new construct that deals with inter partes reviews (IPRs), typically invalidating bogus patents using 35 U.S.C. § 101, inspired by the highest court in the United States.”Michelle Lee got pushed out, partly by a mob of patent maximalists. When a replacement was found for her IAM pressured him to crush PTAB and now it’s jubilant to say “PTAB reforms latest move by PTO to tackle Board’s “perception problem”” (whose perception?).

“After proposed change in claim construction standard, new procedures may lessen need for Congressional action,” it says. No, there was no need for Congressional action; those who asked for Congressional action are crazed patent maximalists who know no boundaries to patent law.

“Michelle Lee got pushed out, partly by a mob of patent maximalists.”The person who visited Iancu and pressured him on behalf of the patent trolls’ lobby (IAM) wrote: “Both look good for patent owners but will be a lot of focus now on how they work in practice” (because this person, Richard Lloyd, will continue to attack PTAB irrespective of what happens next).‏

A person who advocates access to medicines wrote: “USPTO head wants to limit exceptions to patent subject matter.”

He linked to this tweet from a patent maximalist, who said: “This proposal is for new guidance for @uspto Examniers. It wouldn’t involve any new legislation and would be based on previous court decisions.”

“…this would further widen the gap between USPTO determinations and courts’ decisions. How is that beneficial?”Cherry-picking thereof. That’s what lawyers do. They ignore and disregard what doesn’t suit them. That’s what Iancu is. He’s a lawyer. The same person also said: “Outstanding speech at #IPOAM18 by Director Iancu that outlines a proposal for finally resolving the 101 mess – at least at the @USPTO. The proposal clearly defines the limited, excluded categories.”

Well, that will mean nothing to courts; in fact, this would further widen the gap between USPTO determinations and courts’ decisions. How is that beneficial? Maybe that’s fine for law firms because they profit from litigation no matter if it’s entirely frivolous. Bogus patents, bogus lawsuits… what do they care? They just do the billing. Their finance department is happy.

Lisa Ouellette, a patents (and other things) scholar, was citing Dennis Crouch yesterday. Crouch had posted a full transcript, which included this from Iancu:

So first, what exactly should be captured by the judicial exceptions to §101? In essence, and because we no longer want to mush subject matter with the conditions of patentability, the exceptions should capture only those claims that the Supreme Court has said remain outside the categories of patent protection, despite being novel, nonobvious, and well-disclosed. And what are the categories of inventions that the court told us that we should not patent even where the applicant demonstrates full compliance with Sections 102, 103 and 112? The Supreme Court gave us the answer: the “basic tools of scientific and technological work.”

Ouellette seems a tad concerned by Iancu’s plan, which is trying to bypass the law and the Supreme Court. Iancu is Trump’s “swamp” material (his firm had worked for Trump before he got this job), so this does not exactly shock us.

Quoting Ouellette about the IPO meeting from yesterday (IPO is a front group of patent zealots):

In remarks at the annual IPO meeting today, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu said “the USPTO cannot wait” for “uncertain” legislation on patentable subject matter and is “contemplating revised guidance” to help examiners apply this doctrine. Few are likely to object to his general goal of “increased clarity,” but the USPTO should be sure that any new guidance is consistent with precedent from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit.

As most readers of this blog are well aware, the Supreme Court’s recent patentable-subject-matter cases—Bilski (2010), Mayo (2012), Myriad (2013), and Alice (2014)—have made it far easier to invalidate patent claims that fall under the “implicit exception” to § 101 for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Since Alice, the Federal Circuit has held patents challenged on patentable-subject-matter grounds to be invalid in over 90% of appeals, and the court has struggled to provide clear guidance on the contours of the doctrine. Proponents of this shift call it a necessary tool in the fight against “patent trolls”; critics claim it creates needless uncertainty in patent rights and makes it too difficult to patent important innovations in areas such as medical diagnostics. In June, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018, which would amend § 101 to largely undo these changes—following a joint proposal of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)—but Govtrack gives it a 2% chance of being enacted and Patently-O says 0%.

In the absence of legislation, can the USPTO step in? In his IPO speech today, Director Iancu decries “recent § 101 case law” for “mush[ing]” patentable subject matter with the other patentability criteria under §§ 102, 103, and 112, and he proposes new guidance for patent examiners because this mushing “must end.” The problem is that the USPTO cannot overrule recent § 101 case law. It does not have rulemaking authority over substantive patent law criteria, so it must follow Federal Circuit and Supreme Court guidance on this doctrine, mushy though it might be.

Under the Supreme Court’s patentable-subject-matter inquiry, as summarized in Alice, once a patent claim is determined to fall within a statutory category of a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” step 1 is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” and if so, step 2 is to “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the [ineligible concept] into a patent-eligible application”—where “simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality” is “not enough.”

It’s not clear how Iancu thinks or why Iancu believes this will improve things. It will only further exacerbate things as he does not control the courts (nor should he). But it’s all about law firms, not science and technology.

This morning we saw this article titled “Patent 101: Patent Process FAQs For Inventors” (not about Section 101).

“As for the USPTO, it continues to unmask himself as little more than an agent of patent extremists.”“Patent attorneys and patent agents (“patent practitioners”) [EXPLOIT] the best and brightest engineers and scientists on a daily basis,” (for profit) it should say, but it doesn’t use the word “exploit”. That is what the opening paragraph says anyway. Inserting the word “exploit” makes it a lot more sensible. Gene Quinn, another such exploiter, published in Watchtroll an article titled “Are all U.S. Patent Claims Invalid?”

So yesterday too he carried on with strawman arguments as headlines. Of course the answer to this rhetorical question is “no”.

Josh Landau from the CCIA, which represents a lot of technology companies, responded with “Getting The Future Backwards: Iancu’s Comments On § 101 At IPO” and to quote:

This morning, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Iancu gave remarks at the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Annual Meeting. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given IPO’s efforts to legislatively overturn the Supreme Court’s recent cases reinforcing the bar on patents on products of nature and abstract ideas, Director Iancu’s remarks focused on patentable subject matter—§ 101.

While the remarks aren’t formal guidance, what Director Iancu has described is concerning. Specifically, he states that the guidance would instruct examiners to “allow[] claims that include otherwise excluded matter as long as that matter is integrated into a practical application.”

As for the USPTO, it continues to unmask himself as little more than an agent of patent extremists. This is what the official account tweeted: “Let’s stop commingling the categories of invention on one hand, with the conditions for patentability on the other. Section 101 is about subject matter,” said #USPTO Director Andrei Iancu at @IPO today. Read his full remarks: http://bit.ly/2QVr7fq .”

“At the end of the day, these people may be dooming their own patent system by looking to broaden patent scope at the Office even though courts push back, leaving patent holders in a limbo, uncertain of the validity or value (if any) of their patent/s.”Dennis Crouch has meanwhile gone ahead and put a dollar sign ($) in “USPTO” to better explain what USPTO is about: it’s all about greed. But he actually made/used the image for other reasons (“SUCCESS ACT”).

Neil Wilkof (IP Kat) has also just revealed that Iancu is still attending and opening events of patent extremists rather than science and technology events. Whose “SUCCESS” is this man pursuing? Maybe the occupation he came from — the one which exploits scientists and technologists. The USPTO certainty got priorities all wrong. Very wrong. To quote:

The initial speaker was Mr. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Iancu took the audience back to the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair and Chicago Columbian Exposition, which in his words ushered in the modern world of technology. His focus was on the race over who would provide the lighting for the event? On the one hand, there was Thomas A. Edison and his invention of direct electrical current, on the other, the development of alternating current, by Nikola Tesla (the inventor, not the car), supported by George Westinghouse. As noted by Mr. Iancu, Westinghouse (and Tesla) won the bid.

For Mr. Iancu, what we learn from this story is that the patent system both encourages invention as well as patent design around, both of which are integral parts. But in today’s world, the outcome of the war over electrical currents and the role of patent protection in that contest, are not enough. Now, the USPTO is equally(?) focused on how to incentivize invention (read: innovation), although specifics offered were few, other than to emphasize the role of education.

Watchtroll is of course also engaging in yet more PTAB bashing (as always), e.g. “USPTO Substantially Revises PTAB Standard Operating Procedures” (Iancu cannot change patent law itself, he merely lowers patents’ certainty by lessening scrutiny in the office, not in patent courts, and does so at his own peril, lessening the perception of “danger” while at the same time reducing the appeal of US patents). Here is what Patently-O said about it:

Revised SOP2 includes, among other things:

Creation of the POP, typically comprising the Director, the Commissioner for Patents, and the Chief Judge of the PTAB;
Identification of the circumstances when POP members may delegate their authority, and to whom;
Provision of notice to the parties when POP review takes place, as well as the identification of the POP members in a particular case;
Explanation of the standards, procedures, and timing for requesting POP review in a pending case on rehearing; and
Revised procedures for designating a decision previously issued by the PTAB as precedential or informative.

Michael Loney from another patent maximalists’ site wrote this:

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has revised its standard operating procedures on panelling of matters and precedential and informative decisions

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has revised its standard operating procedures (SOPs) on panelling of matters (SOP1) and precedential and informative decisions (SOP2).

Loney’s colleague, Ellie Mertens, then wrote about “PTAB cases to watch for the rest of 2018″ as follows:

Important pending Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases relate to issues ranging from assignor estoppel to the constitutionality of PTAB judges’ appointments

The top nine cases related to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to watch for the rest of 2018 relate to issues ranging from assignor estoppel as it relates to inter partes reviews (IPRs) to the constitutionality of PTAB…

As readers may recall, Iancu moved the chief judge of PTAB (although it may have been voluntary) after he had been smeared by patent maximalists (maybe that’s the “perception” he was alluding to). He’s an actual scientist, for a change. The maximalists already try to replace him (as always) with someone who better suits their agenda. At the end of the day, these people may be dooming their own patent system by looking to broaden patent scope at the Office even though courts push back, leaving patent holders in a limbo, uncertain of the validity or value (if any) of their patent/s.

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 16/11/2018: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Beta, Mesa 18.2.5, VirtualBox 6.0 Beta 2

    Links for the day



  2. Berkheimer or No Berkheimer, Software Patents Remain Mostly Unenforceable in the United States and the Supreme Court is Fine With That

    35 U.S.C. § 101, which is based on cases like Alice and Mayo, offers the 'perfect storm' against software patents; it doesn't look like any of that will change any time soon (if ever)



  3. Ignoring and Bashing Courts: Is This the Future of Patent Offices in the West?

    Andrei Iancu, who is trying to water down 35 U.S.C. § 101 while Trump ‘waters down’ SCOTUS (which delivered Alice), isn’t alone; António Campinos, the new President of the EPO, is constantly promoting software patents (which European courts reject, citing the EPC) and even Australia’s litigation ‘industry’ is dissenting against Australian courts that stubbornly reject software patents



  4. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Figure Out How to Stop PTAB or Prevent US Patent Quality From Ever Improving

    Improvements are being made to US patents because of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which amends/culls/pro-actively rejects (at application phases) bad patents; but the likes of Andrei Iancu cannot stand that because they're patent maximalists, who personally gain from an over-saturation of patents



  5. Links 15/11/2018: Zentyal 6.0, Deepin 15.8, Thunderbird Project Hiring

    Links for the day



  6. A Question of Debt: António Campinos, Lexology, Law Gazette, and Sam Gyimah

    Ineptitude in the media which dominates if not monopolises UPC coverage means that laws detrimental to everyone but patent lawyers are nowadays being pushed even by ministers (not just those whose clandestine vote is used/bought to steal democracy overnight)



  7. Science Minister Sam Gyimah and the EPO Are Eager to Attack Science by Bringing Patent Trolls to Europe/European Union and the United Kingdom

    Team UPC has managed to indoctrinate or hijack key positions, causing those whose job is to promote science to actually promote patent trolls and litigation (suppressing science rather than advancing it)



  8. USF Revisits EPO Abuses, Highlighting an Urgent Need for Action

    “Staff Representation Disciplinary Cases” — a message circulated at the end of last week — reveals the persistence of union-busting agenda and injustice at the EPO



  9. Links 14/11/2018: KDevelop 5.3, Omarine 5.3, Canonical Not for Sale

    Links for the day



  10. Second Day of EPOPIC: Yet More Promotion of Software Patents in Europe in Defiance of Courts, EPC, Parliament and Common Sense

    Using bogus interpretations of the EPC — ones that courts have repeatedly rejected — the EPO continues to grant bogus/fake/bunk patents on abstract ideas, then justifies that practice (when the audience comes from the litigation ‘industry’)



  11. Allegations That António Campinos 'Bought' His Presidency and is Still Paying for it

    Rumours persist that after Battistelli had rigged the election in favour of his compatriot nefarious things related to that were still visible



  12. WIPO Corruption and Coverup Mirror EPO Tactics

    Suppression of staff representatives and whistleblowers carries on at WIPO and the EPO; people who speak out about abuses are themselves being treated like abusers



  13. Links 13/11/2018: HPC Domination (Top 500 All GNU/Linux) and OpenStack News

    Links for the day



  14. The USPTO and EPO Pretend to Care About Patent Quality by Mingling With the Terms “Patent” and “Quality”

    The whole "patent quality" propaganda from EPO and USPTO management continues unabated; they strive to maintain the fiction that quality rather than money is their prime motivator



  15. Yannis Skulikaris Promotes Software Patents at EPOPIC, Defending the Questionable Practice Under António Campinos

    The reckless advocacy for abstract patents on mere algorithms from a new and less familiar face; the EPO is definitely eager to grant software patents and it explains to stakeholders how to do it



  16. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is Working for Patent Trolls and Patent Maximalists

    The patent trolls' propagandists are joining forces and pushing for a patent system that is hostile to science, technology, and innovation in general (so as to enable a bunch of aggressive law firms to tax everybody)



  17. Team UPC, Fronting for Patent Trolls From the US, is Calling Facts “Resistance”

    The tactics of Team UPC have gotten so tastelessly bad and its motivation so shallow (extortion in Europe) that one begins to wonder why these people are willing to tarnish everything that's left of their reputation



  18. The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed

    New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there's still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation 'industry' (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)



  19. Links 12/11/2018: Linux 4.20 RC2, Denuvo DRM Defeated Again

    Links for the day



  20. Automation of Searches Will Not Solve the Legitimacy Problem Caused by Patents Lust

    The false belief that better searches and so-called 'AI' can miraculously assess patents will simply drive/motivate bad decisions and already steers bad management towards patent maximalism (presumption of examination/validation where none actually exists)



  21. The Federal Circuit and PTAB Are Not Slowing Down; Patent Maximalists Claim It's 'Harassment' to Question a Patent's Validity

    There’s no sign of stopping when it comes to harassment of judges and courts; those who make a living from patent threats and litigation do anything conceivable to stop the ‘bloodbath’ of US patents which were never supposed to have been granted in the first place



  22. Patent Maximalists Will Latch Onto Return Mail v US Postal Service in an Effort to Weaken or Limit Post-Grant Reviews of US Patents

    An upcoming case, dealing with what governments can and cannot do with/to patents (specifically the US government and US patents), interests the litigation 'industry' because it loathes reviews of low-quality and/or controversial patents (these reviews discourage litigation or stop lawsuits early on in the cycle)



  23. Guest Post: EPO Spins Censorship of Staff Representation

    Another concrete example of Campinos' cynical story-telling



  24. Andrei Iancu and Laura Peter Are Two Proponents of Patent Trolls at the Top of the USPTO

    Patent offices do not seem to care about the law, about the courts, about judges and so on; all they care about is money (and litigation costs) and that’s a very major problem



  25. The Patent 'Industry' Wants Incitations and Feuds, Not Innovation and Collaboration

    The litigation giants and their drones keep insisting that they're interested in helping scientists; but sooner or later the real (productive) industry learns to kick them to the curb and work together instead of suing



  26. EPO 'Outsourcing' Rumours

    The EPO advertises jobs in Prague and Lisbon; this leads to speculations less than a year after António Campinos sent EU-IPO jobs to India (for cost reduction)



  27. Links 11/11/2018: Bison 3.2.1 and FreeBSD 12.0 Beta 4

    Links for the day



  28. Pro-Litigation Front Groups Like CIPA and Team UPC Control the EPO, Which Shamelessly Grants Software Patents

    With buzzwords and hype like "insurtech", "fintech", "blockchains" and "AI" the EPO (and to some degree the USPTO as well) looks to allow a very wide range of software patents; the sole goal is to grant millions of low-quality patents, creating unnecessary litigation in Europe



  29. Latest Loophole: To Get Software Patents From the EPO One Can Just Claim That They're 'on a Car'

    The EPO has a new 'study' (accompanied by an extensive media/PR campaign) that paints software as "SDV" if it runs on a car, celebrating growth of such software patents



  30. The Huge Cost of Wrongly-Granted European Patents, Recklessly Granted by the European Patent Office (EPO)

    It took 4 years for many thousands of people to have just one patent of Monsanto/Bayer revoked; what does that say about the impact of erroneous patent awards?


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