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

12.22.18

Patent Attorneys Still Insult Judges Because Their Clients, Notably Patent Trolls, Hate 35 U.S.C. § 101 (and Courts Are Correctly Applying It)

Posted in America, Courtroom, Microsoft, Patents at 5:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Judges have become ‘dangerous’ for the same reason peacemakers are ‘dangerous’

The profit motive

Summary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) judges still receive scorn, mockery and disdain from people who make a living out of lawsuits; it has become a stain on the reputation of law firms — a simple fact they’re incapable of comprehending or unwilling to grasp

THE new Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) likes to ignore the Federal Circuit or cherry-pick only decisions which suit his personal agenda. He also routinely mocks/belittles 35 U.S.C. § 101, hence the highest US court. He’s mostly supported by a ranting bunch of lawyers/attorneys like himself. Michael Borella, for instance, has just unleashed this latest complaint about 35 U.S.C. § 101, offering tips/pointers for bypassing it. “Opening scene,” he declared, “our intrepid patent attorney arrives early at her office for a productive day at work. With morning coffee sitting next to her monitor, she opens her email. She finds a few messages from clients and colleagues, as well as a new office action from the USPTO. Curious, she opens the Office action and scans through it, only to find that it contains yet another 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection applying the dreaded Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom S.A. decision.”

“These people dread PTAB because PTAB reduces the number of patents and limits the scope of acceptable patents.”Good. Get a real job. David Boundy (Cambridge Technology Law) has also just written for this site. After a bunch of PTAB-hostile blog posts and articles he claims: “My article shows that lapses of administrative law are not confined to Gil Hyatt (a petition for rehearing of Hyatt v. PTO is currently pending, as discussed on Patently-O (see “Agency Bad Guidance Practices at the Patent and Trademark Office: a Billion Dollar Problem”), nor are lapses confined to individual examiners.”

In our previous articles which mentioned Boundy (e.g. [1, 2]) we rebutted his claims, taking note of his financial motivations. These people dread PTAB because PTAB reduces the number of patents and limits the scope of acceptable patents. Anne Cullen, for instance, has just noted that “PTAB Cuts Some Huawei Patent Claims In Samsung Fight” and to quote what’s not behind paywall:

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has handed a partial win to Samsung in a dispute over three Huawei cellular network patents, chucking all of the challenged claims…

This is very typical. They re-evaluate the examination.

Thanks to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) the patent troll SMTM Technology may soon lose its sole ‘business’: patent lawsuits. With a “patent challenged as likely invalid,” Jain stated 4-5 days ago:

On December 17, 2018, Unified filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent 8,958,853, owned and asserted by SMTM Technology, LLC, an NPE. The ‘853 patent, directed to automatically causing a mobile device to enter into an inactive mode when the mobile device is being used in a moving vehicle, has been asserted in district court litigation against Apple and Microsoft.

Here’s another chance to win a thousand bucks by helping to squash a questionable US patent:

On December 20, 2018, Unified added a $1,000 contest to PATROLL seeking prior art for US Patent No. 8553831 owned by Feng Ma. The ’831 patent, generally relates to a computed tomography imaging system used for medical diagnoses.

Last but not least, a patent troll called General Patent Corp. faces another (more recent) challenge:

On December 20, 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted trial on all challenged claims in an IPR filed by Unified against U.S. Patent 9,253,239 owned by Bradium Technologies, LLC, a General Patent Corp. subsidiary and NPE. As in its recent institutions against Realtime Adaptive Streaming and Mobility Workx, the Board once again rejected arguments that Unified’s members are real parties-in-interest in view of the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX. The ’239 patent, directed to a “Optimized image delivery over limited bandwidth communication channels,” is not actively involved in district court litigation.

All the above are IPRs and these typically target patent trolls. Unfortunately, Steven Seidenberg has just come out again with loaded headlines, akin to those from climate change deniers. To quote:

Two recent academic papers examine whether Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) deserve their reputation as patent trolls – but the papers reach conflicting conclusions. As discussed in the first part of this article, a paper published by Stanford’s Hoover Institution found that 26 publicly-listed NPEs invest in R&D and do little harm to America’s high tech sector. These findings, however, are less significant than they appear. Another paper, published by Harvard Business School (HBS), found that NPEs do on average behave as patent trolls. How important – and trustworthy – are the HBS findings?

“NPEs” and “patent trolls” are the same thing; they’re synonymous. They exist for nothing but lawsuits/extortion.

“”NPEs” and “patent trolls” are the same thing; they’re synonymous. They exist for nothing but lawsuits/extortion.”The other day Janal Kalis took note of a software patent’s invalidation (“US Pat 9516045, Resisting the spread of unwanted code and data; Alice/101 Kill by Dist. Ct. Affirmed by Fed.Cir.”) only for a patent trolls' attorney (Mr. Gross) to lose his mind and attack the judges (“Another terrible, bogus, illogical interpretation of 101 by the CAFC; I wonder if the fact that there was no 101 rejection at the PTO during prosecution affected their thinking? [] Taranto says that “filtering in content” is not a distinction over “filtering out content” and therefore is just abstract even as it is a clear computer function http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1407.Opinion.12-20-2018.pdf … Amazing how he goes out of way to trivialize technical distinctions when it suits his agenda [] Only in CAFC bizarro-land could physical operation – breaking an electronic file into pieces, and sorting conforming/non-conforming content- be considered as NOT directed to improving computer functionality. We’re being ruled by techno-illiterati http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1407.Opinion.12-20-2018.pdf … [] I’m convinced Judge Taranto is responsible for more than 90% of the mess concerning 101 at CAFC: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1407.Opinion.12-20-2018.pdf … his opinions are arbitrary, illogical and results oriented; his attempted distinction of Finjan is completely technically incorrect…”).

“The bottom line is, trolls are often litigation proxies working at the behest of other entities.”Mr. Gross is supporting trolls, for whom he writes articles. His defense of Microsoft trolls like Finjan is hardly surprising either (Finjan is mentioned 4 times in page 4 of this decision).

Speaking of Microsoft trolls, Keith Bergelt from the Open Invention Network has just recalled Microsoft’s funding for SCO (Microsoft also funded Finjan). To quote:

Symbolically and functionally it’s extremely significant. The Open Invention Network (OIN) was formed in the wake of the SCO litigation against IBM, Red Hat and SUSE/Novell. SCO sued claiming to have Unix related functionality that was relevant to Linux.

This litigation was quietly funded by Microsoft, lasted several years and went nowhere. In the end, there was no liability and no culpability for the alleged infringements

The bottom line is, trolls are often litigation proxies working at the behest of other entities. It is a shell game. To argue that they don’t exist or that their patents do no harm is very dodgy an attitude/approach.

Maybe one day these trolls-friendly attorneys will regret what they said; this is why we need to keep this stuff well documented, properly preserved.

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 16/6/2019: Tmax OS and New Features for KDE.org

    Links for the day



  2. Stuffed/Stacked Panels Sent Back Packing After One-Sided Patent Hearings That Will Convince Nobody, Just Preach to the Choir

    Almost a week ago the 'world tour' of patent lobbyists in US Senate finally ended; it was an utterly ridiculous case study in panel stacking and bribery (attempts to buy laws)



  3. 2019 H1: American Software Patents Are as Worthless as They Were Last Year and Still Susceptible to Invalidation

    With a fortnight left before the second half of the year it seems evident that software patents aren't coming back; the courts have not changed their position at all



  4. As European Patent Office Management Covers up Collapse in Patent Quality Don't Expect UPC to Ever Kick Off

    It would be madness to allow EPO-granted patents to become 'unitary' (bypassing sovereignty of nations that actually still value patent quality); it seems clear that rogue EPO management has, in effect, not only doomed UPC ambitions but also European Patents (or their perceived legitimacy, presumption of validity)



  5. António Campinos -- Unlike His Father -- Engages in Imperialism (Using Invalid Patents)

    Despite some similarities to his father (not positive similarities), António Campinos is actively engaged in imperialistic agenda that defies even European law; the EPO not only illegally grants patents but also urges other patent offices to do the same



  6. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  7. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  8. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  9. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  10. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  11. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  12. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  13. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  14. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  15. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  16. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  17. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  18. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  19. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  20. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  21. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day



  22. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)



  23. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)



  24. Links 9/6/2019: Arrest of Microsoft Peter, Linux 5.2 RC4, Ubuntu Touch Update

    Links for the day



  25. Chapter 8: A Foot in the Door -- How to Train Sympathetic Developers and Infiltrate Other Projects

    How to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects



  26. Chapter 7: Patent War -- Use Low-Quality Patents to Prove That All Software Rips Off Your Company

    Patents in the United States last for 20 years from the time of filing. Prior to 1994, the patent term was 17 years from when the patent was issued.



  27. The Linux Foundation in 2019: Over 100 Million Dollars in Income, But Cannot Maintain Linux.com?

    Today’s Linux Foundation gets about 0.1 billion dollars per year (as explained in our previous post), so why can’t it spend about 0.1% of that money on people who write for and maintain a site that actually promotes GNU/Linux?



  28. Microsoft and Proprietary Software Vendors a Financial Boon for the Linux Foundation, But at What Cost?

    The Linux Foundation is thriving financially, but the sources of income are diversified to the point where the Linux Foundation is actually funded by foes of Linux, defeating the very purpose or direction of such a nonprofit foundation (led by self-serving millionaires who don't use GNU/Linux)



  29. The Linux Foundation as a Facilitator of Microsoft's Abduction of Developers (for GitHub, Azure, Visual Studio and Windows)

    There’s a profoundly disturbing pattern; in a rush for influence and money the Linux Foundation inadvertently (or worse — consciously and deliberately) paved the way to Microsoft’s more modern version of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE)



  30. Links 8/6/2019: FreeBSD 11.3 Beta 3, Git 2.22.0 and IPFire 2.23

    Links for the day


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

Recent Posts