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

11.05.18

The USPTO Under Director Andrei Iancu Actively Disses the Courts and Attacks Fundamental Patent Law

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 3:08 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

They just don’t care what courts are saying

Trump and Iancu

Summary: Eliminating any perception of a separation of powers — much like Battistelli did at the EPO — the Iancu-led USPTO decides to just ignore what courts are saying, in effect opening the floodgates to fake patents (patents that don’t have any chance/legal bearing in courts)

THE European Patent Office (EPO) and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) aren’t quite allowed to grant software patents. software patents in Europe are in defiance of the EPC and software patents in the US are in defiance of 35 U.S.C. § 101. So the offices came up with loopholes to make software patents seem like something else, e.g. “blockchains” and “AI” (their favourite terms as of late).

Last week IAM ran an event that shamelessly promoted software patents. “We’re starting off the morning discussing the patentability of software globally,” IAM wrote, “with @uspto’s John Cabeca, @AmadeusITGroup’s Jean François Cases, @AlibabaGroup’s Roger Shang and @facebook’s Gilbert Wong #SoftwareIP pic.twitter.com/D2M945Q2CK”

So much for ‘balanced’ panel…

IAM is just lobbying as “news” and lobbying as “panels” or “events”. That’s a fraud of a site. It’s like an unregistered think tank and it’s not hard to see who’s funding it.

IAM’s patent zealot Richard Lloyd ended up writing such obvious falsehoods [1, 2], based on what the patent trolls (income source of IAM) need…

Without entertaining or amplifying what’s there, let’s just say that they speak to nobody who actually writes software. The event is called “Software IP” even though nobody there actually develops software/codes. To make matters worse, IAM (the patent trolls’ lobby) is intentionally lying. These people know they lie. Just take the headline above for example: “Soon-to-be-released USPTO examination guidance looks like being good news for applicants”

Lloyd means “good news for trolls and litigation firms” (applicants would just lose money, wasted on worthless, bunk patents that courts would reject).

Let’s look at what Lloyd is alluding to. For the perception of public input, as we noted last week, the “USPTO seeks comment on AIA guidelines,” to quote one headline. From the article: “The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking comments on its updated America Invents Act (AIA) guidelines for standard practices before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in post-grant trial procedures. [...] The USPTO also wants comments on the proposed timelines designed to ensure completion within 12 months from institution, as well as a number of specific questions.”

Here is what Patent Docs wrote:

In AIA post-grant proceedings — specifically, Post-Grant Review (“PGR”), Inter Partes Review (“IPR”), and Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review — the patentee has the right to seek to amend the claims rather than fight over the issued claims. However, in 90% of the cases in which a motion to amend has been decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the motion has been denied. Based significantly on the dismal success rate of those motions to amend, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has now proposed an altered protocol for considering motions to amend in AIA post-grant proceedings. Specifically, it proposes having the PTAB provide a preliminary review of whether amended claims would satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements, then allowing the parties to react and a Patent Owner to potentially revise the motion to amend. Separately, the Office asked whether it should reallocate the burden of persuasion in motion to amend proceedings. Comments on these proposals are due by December 14, 2018.

That’s Josh Rich on what lobbying if not entryism by the litigation ‘industry’ has done to the US patent office that’s nowadays PTAB-hostile (because it’s trying to reduce patent quality). Nothing else has worked so far, so they are trying to change the rules. When it comes to Berkheimer, a court case that was massively hyped by the patent zealots (in vain), Dennis Crouch found just 4 examples in CAFC (that’s once a week!) in which it was cited last month. So the lawsuits ‘industry’ lied to its clients again. “In Berkheimer,” Crouch recalls, “the Federal Circuit explained that underlying factual disputes might prevent a motion on the pleadings or summary judgment decision. In this post, I looked at four recent district court cases that cite Berkheimer.” All he found was 1) In iSentium, LLC v Bloomberg Fin. L.P. 2) In ECOSERVICES, LLC, Pl., v CERTIFIED AVIATION SERVICES, LLC 3) In CardioNet, LLC v InfoBionic, Inc. and 4) KROY IP HOLDINGS, LLC, Pl., v GROUPON, INC.

The hopeless USPTO has therefore decided to just ignore the court or cherry-picking outcomes. An article by Julian Asquith and Tobias Eriksson explains that the “USPTO Director Suggests New Test For Software Patents” and to quote:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) director, Andrei Iancu, recently gave a talk at the IPO’s annual meeting, and he had some exciting news regarding subject matter eligibility, which affects the patentability of software. Ever since the Supreme Court Alice decision in 2014, many applicants have found the examination of software patents in the US inconsistent and unpredictable. Iancu readily acknowledged the existing problems with determining patentable subject matter, and in particular with determining whether or not protection is sought for an “abstract idea”, which is not patentable in the US under section 101. In an attempt to solve these problems the USPTO is now contemplating new guidance to simplify the test for an “abstract idea” and to improve the consistency and predictability of examination.

He actually said this to IPO. It’s like IPO got together with Iancu, trying to bring back software patents in defiance of US courts because Iancu’s appointing authority hates judges anyway. From IAM’s event we have [1, 2, 3]: “@uspto SIlicon Valley office head John Cabeca – we’re currently in the clearance process for new 101 guidance [...] We fully expect that there will be fewer 101 rejections after guidance is issued [...] Ultimately what we want to do is bring more certainty for patent owners…”

No, they are doing exactly the opposite. Iancu and Cabeca want to grant yet more fake patents that courts would then invalidate (if they reached the courts). Less legal certainty is thus inevitable. That just means that far fewer USPTO-granted patents will be valid. More bogus software patents granted for courts to invalidate. Is patent law under attack? And if so, by who? Not judges but the Office. Not PTAB but USPTO management.

As Janal Kalis noted last week: “The PTAB Affirmed an Examiner’s 101 Rejection of Claims of a Bayer Patent Application for Measuring Analyte with a Biosensor System: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017001517-10-17-2018-1 …”

Kalis gave another example: “The PTAB Affirmed an Examiner’s 101 Rejection of Claims in a Philips Patent Application for an Apparatus for Determining Parameters for Measuring Sleep Apnea: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017007834-10-16-2018-1 …”

Iancu wants to change that, making applications harder to reject. That’s the same mistake Battistelli made at the EPO. With IPO et al calling the shots, one has to wonder whose agenda is being served. Groups like AIPLA and the IPO are legal zealots whose sole goal is more lawsuits. They attack science, innovation, whatever. They only care about themselves.

Now watch this report from last week:

The Boston Patent Law Association (BPLA) has come out in support of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) and American IP Law Association (AIPLA)’s joint proposal concerning section 101 of the US Patent Act.

The proposal, which was delivered to US Patent and Trademark Office director Andrei Iancu on 3 May, calls for restored certainty in the predictability of patent subject matter eligibility.

AIPLA and the IPO notified Iancu that the organisations had adopted a unified legislative proposal, which would amend section 101 of the patent act.

Boston Patent Law Association is in the same ‘business’ as AIPLA and the IPO, so why should that even sound like surprise? Watchtroll wrote about the above, calling it a “Fix” (Watchtroll’s headline was “Boston Patent Law Association Announces Support for IPO-AIPLA Section 101 Legislative Fix” [sic]).

Lawyers support their own front groups and an attack on legal certainty. How is that even remotely surprising?

Then there’s the Intellectual Property Association, the European equivalent of IPO.

That the Intellectual Property Association is acting as a front group against Alice/Section 101 (and for software patents) is hardly surprising; what’s less expected, however, is the shamelessness. These people attack Alice by lying about its impact on behalf of the litigation ‘industry’ (vandals). As IP Kat reported last week from another event (“Report from 2018 Annual Meeting of the European Policy for Intellectual Property Association”): “He discussed this issue in relation to the difficulties of bringing to bear financial sources for risky R&D activities. He argued that the ‘abstract idea test’ devised in the Alice case has created uncertainty in the US patent system and has done harm to R&D, given that investors’ main concern is the return of their investment.”

Complete nonsense. This has been repeatedly refuted. They are in essence attacking the law itself. Watchtroll does that too; only days ago it pretended not to understand why SCOTUS rejects software patents and patents on life. It always pretends because its founder does not want to understand and tries to get Congress involved. To quote a portion: “As insulting as it is that the Supreme Court refuses to define the term “abstract idea”, the Supreme Court also uses the terms “natural phenomena” and “laws of nature” interchangeably, saying that they do not need to precisely identify which of the judicial exceptions they are using when analyzing the patent eligibility of a claimed invention in the life sciences sector. Again, this is their own test, and the Supreme Court mandates its application but refuses to define the key terms and phrases. How any jurist trained in the American system can believe an extra-statutory test is consistent with norms of American jurisprudence is a mystery, but hiding the ball and refusing to define key terms and concepts is truly unbelievable.”

It is pretty obvious what it means, but those who made a living pursuing fake patents (no longer worth even a dollar) refuse to understand. As recently as last night Watchtroll published another such attack on the law and the courts. Iancu could possibly claim that he isn’t attacking the courts and attempting to change the law; but the evidence speaks for itself and his connections to Watchtroll do not help.

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 23/3/2019: Falkon 3.1.0 and Tails 3.13.1

    Links for the day



  2. The Unified Patent Court is Dead, But Doubts Remain Over the EPO's Appeal Boards' Ability to Rule Independently Against Patents on Nature and Code

    Patents used to cover physical inventions (such as engines); nowadays this just isn't the case anymore and judges who can clarify these questions lack the freedom to think outside the box (and disobey patent maximalists' dogma)



  3. Patent Law Firms Still Desperate to Find New Ways to Resurrect Dead Software Patents in the United States

    There's no rebound and no profound changes that favour software patents; in fact, judging by caselaw, there's nothing even remotely like that



  4. Links 22/3/2019: Libinput 1.13 RC2 and Facebook's Latest Security Scandal

    Links for the day



  5. Why the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK-IPO) Cannot Ignore Judges, Whereas the EPO Can (and Does)

    The European Patent Convention (EPC) ceased to matter, judges' interpretation of it no longer matters either; the EPO exploits this to grant hundreds of thousands of dodgy software patents, then trumpet "growth"



  6. The European Patent Office Needs to Put Lives Before Profits

    Patents that pertain to health have always posed an ethical dilemma; the EPO apparently tackled this dilemma by altogether ignoring the rights and needs of patients (in favour of large corporations that benefit financially from poor people's mortality)



  7. “Criminal Organisation”

    Brazil's ex-President, Temer, is arrested (like other former presidents of Brazil); will the EPO's ex-President Battistelli ever be arrested (now that he lacks diplomatic immunity and hides at CEIPI)?



  8. Links 21/3/2019: Wayland 1.17.0, Samba 4.10.0, OpenShot 2.4.4 and Zorin Beta

    Links for the day



  9. Team UPC (Unitary Patent) is a Headless Chicken

    Team UPC's propaganda about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has become so ridiculous that the pertinent firms do not wish to be identified



  10. António Campinos Makes Up Claims About Patent Quality, Only to be Rebutted by Examiners, Union (Anyone But the 'Puff Pieces' Industry)

    Battistelli's propagandistic style and self-serving 'studies' carry on; the notion of patent quality has been totally discarded and is nowadays lied about as facts get 'manufactured', then disseminated internally and externally



  11. Links 20/3/2019: Google Announces ‘Stadia’, Tails 3.13

    Links for the day



  12. CEN and CENELEC Agreement With the EPO Shows That It's Definitely the European Commission's 'Department'

    With headlines such as “EPO to collaborate on raising SEP awareness” it is clear to see that the Office lacks impartiality and the European Commission cannot pretend that the EPO is “dafür bin ich nicht zuständig” or “da kenne ich mich nicht aus”



  13. Decisions Made Inside the European Patent Organisation (EPO) Lack Credibility Because Examiners and Judges Lack Independence

    The lawless, merciless, Mafia-like culture left by Battistelli continues to haunt judges and examiners; how can one ever trust the Office (or the Organisation at large) to deliver true justice in adherence or compliance with the EPC?



  14. Team UPC Buries Its Credibility Deeper in the Grave

    The three Frenchmen at the top do not mention the UPC anymore; but those who promote it for a living (because they gambled on leveraging it for litigation galore) aren't giving up and in the process they perpetuate falsehoods



  15. The EPO Has Sadly Taken a Side and It's the Patent Trolls' Side

    Abandoning the whole rationale behind patents, the Office now led for almost a year by António Campinos prioritises neither science nor technology; it's all about granting as many patents (European monopolies) as possible for legal activity (applications, litigation and so on)



  16. Where the USPTO Stands on the Subject of Abstract Software Patents

    Not much is changing as we approach Easter and software patents are still fool's gold in the United States, no matter if they get granted or not



  17. Links 19/3/2019: Jetson/JetBot, Linux 5.0.3, Kodi Foundation Joins The Linux Foundation, and Firefox 66

    Links for the day



  18. Links 18/3/2019: Solus 4, Linux 5.1 RC1, Mesa 18.3.5, OSI Individual Member Election Won by Microsoft

    Links for the day



  19. Microsoft and Its Patent Trolls Continue Their Patent War, Including the War on Linux

    Microsoft is still preying on GNU/Linux using patents, notably software patents; it wants billions of dollars served on a silver platter in spite of claims that it reached a “truce” by joining the Open Invention Network and joining the LOT Network



  20. Director Iancu Generally Viewed as a Lapdog of Patent Trolls

    As Director of the Office, Mr. Iancu, a Trump appointee, not only fails to curb patent trolls; he actively defends them and he lowers barriers in order to better equip them with bogus patents that courts would reject (if the targets of extortion could afford a day in court)



  21. Links 17/3/2019: Google Console and IBM-Red Hat Merger Delay?

    Links for the day



  22. To Team UPC the Unified Patent Court (UPC) Has Become a Joke and the European Patent Office (EPO) Never Mentions It Anymore

    The EPO's frantic rally to the very bottom of patent quality may be celebrated by obedient media and patent law firms; to people who actually produce innovative things, however, this should be a worrisome trend and thankfully courts are getting in the way of this nefarious agenda; one of these courts is the FCC in Germany



  23. Links 16/3/2019: Knoppix Release and SUSE Independence

    Links for the day



  24. Stopping António Campinos and His Software Patents Agenda (Not Legal in Europe) Would Require Independent Courts

    Software patents continue to be granted (new tricks, loopholes and buzzwords) and judges who can put an end to that are being actively assaulted by those who aren't supposed to have any authority whatsoever over them (for decisions to be impartially delivered)



  25. The Linux Foundation Needs to Speak Out Against Microsoft's Ongoing (Continued) Patent Shakedown of OEMs That Ship Linux

    Zemlin actively thanks Microsoft while taking Microsoft money; he meanwhile ignores how Microsoft viciously attacks Linux using patents, revealing the degree to which his foundation, the “Linux Foundation” (not about Linux anymore, better described as Zemlin’s PAC), has been compromised



  26. Links 15/3/2019: Linux 5.0.2, Sublime Text 3.2

    Links for the day



  27. The EPO and the USPTO Are Granting Fake Patents on Software, Knowing That Courts Would Reject These

    Office management encourages applicants to send over patent applications that are laughable while depriving examiners the freedom and the time they need to reject these; it means that loads of bogus patents are being granted, enshrined as weapons that trolls can use to extort small companies outside the courtroom



  28. CommunityBridge is a Cynical Microsoft-Funded Effort to Show Zemlin Works for 'Community', Not Microsoft

    After disbanding community participation in the Board (but there are Microsoft staff on the Board now) the "Linux Foundation" (or Zemlin PAC) continues to take Microsoft money and polishes or launders that as "community"



  29. Links 14/3/2019: GNOME 3.32 and Mesa 19.0.0 Released

    Links for the day



  30. EPO 'Results' Are, As Usual, Not Measured Correctly

    The supranational monopoly, a monopoly-granting authority, is being used by António Campinos to grant an insane amount of monopolies whose merit is dubious and whose impact on Europe will be a net negative


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