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


Decades of ‘Stupid’ Software Patents, Tactlessly Granted by the USPTO, Have Caused a Flood of Invalidations and Now a ‘Section 101 Day’

Posted in America, Patents at 3:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Courts continue to be overwhelmed by briefs and motions for invalidation of abstract patents, Judge Leonard Stark (chief of the new American ‘rocket docket’) admits

Chief Judge Leonard Stark

Summary: Stunning admission from Chief Judge Leonard Stark, who is coming to grips with the severity of the quality issue and is announcing/heralding a ‘Section 101 Day’

QUALITY of patents is an important aspect of patent law. The quality of US patents — or patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) — became the subject of much ridicule in recent decades. Going back to the days of ‘Slashdot glory’, people used to routinely shame patents over there. Companies like IBM were often forced (to save face) into conceding patents. At Sun, esteemed engineers had a game: let’s see who manages to get the most stupid patent accepted by the USPTO. Admissions about these games came out after Oracle had bought Sun.

“At Sun, esteemed engineers had a game: let’s see who manages to get the most stupid patent accepted by the USPTO.”Just before this weekend the EFF’s Joe Mullin announced the “Stupid Patent of the Month” (something he used to do a lot as a journalist). He now focuses on charlatans with fake patents that are software patents. To quote:

What if we allowed some people to patent the law and then demand money from the rest of us just for following it?

As anyone with a basic understanding of democratic principles can see, that is a terrible idea. In a democracy, elected representatives write laws that apply to everyone, ideally, based on the public interest. We shouldn’t let private parties “own” legal principles or use technical jargon to re-cast those principles as “inventions.”

But that’s exactly what the U.S. Patent Office has allowed two inventors, Nicholas Hall and Steven Eakin, to do. Last September, the government proclaimed that Hall and Eakin are the inventors of “Methods and Systems for User Opt-In to Data Privacy Agreements,” U.S. Patent No. 10,075,451.

The owner of this patent, a company called “Veripath,” is already filing lawsuits against companies that make privacy compliance software. With Congress and many states actively engaged in debates over consumer privacy laws, Veripath might soon be using this patent to extract licensing cash from U.S. companies as well.


Some background: Venpath, Inc., a company with a New York address that appears to be a virtual office, assigned the rights in the ’451 patent to VeriPath just days before the patent issued in September last year. As it happens, the FTC began enforcement proceedings against VenPath last September. The FTC’s complaint [PDF] alleged that VenPath’s website represented that “VenPath participates in and has certified its compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework.” The FTC alleged a count of “privacy misrepresentation.” It claimed that VenPath “did not complete the steps necessary to renew its participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework after that certification expired in October 2017.” The FTC issued a Decision and Order [PDF] requiring VenPath to remove the misrepresentations.

An exhibit [PDF] attached to the complaint shows that one of the named inventors on the patent, Nick Hall, contacted Faktor to ask what its prices were. Hall identified himself as the CEO of VenPath. Once Faktor responded, Veripath sued Faktor in federal court in New York.

In its lawsuits, Veripath claims that basic warnings about cookies on websites, a now-common method of complying with the GDPR, violate its patent. The lawsuit against Faktor notes that Faktor’s own website “might not work properly” unless a user consents to having her browser accept cookies.


Even when a patent is invalid, defendants face pressure to settle. Patent litigation is expensive and it can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get through the early stages. To really protect innovation we have to ensure that patents like the ’451 patent are never issued in the first place. The fact that this patent was granted shows the Patent Office is failing to apply the law.

We are currently urging the public to tell the Patent Office to stop issuing abstract software patents.

“Stupid Patent of the Month” used to be announced and/or selected by Daniel Nazer, but he recently changed jobs and now works for Mozilla.

“”Stupid Patent of the Month” used to be announced and/or selected by Daniel Nazer, but he recently changed jobs and now works for Mozilla.”At the start of the year we promised ourselves to focus more on the European Patent Office (EPO) and GNU/Linux, mostly at the expense of USPTO coverage, unless things take a sharp turn for the worse in the US. Two months down the line, have things gotten worse? No. Not really. But the concerns expressed above (by the EFF) are not baseless because at the moment the Office continues to grant software patents — abstract patents that oughtn’t be granted. We keep seeing more and more stories about such patents being squashed in courts; sometimes we only include them in daily links without remarking/talking about them. We have to budget our time.

Here’s another example: Paltalk/PeerStream case. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will probably trash the underlying patents (there’s an inter partes review (IPR)), based on this new press release, but the lawyers will get money for the dispute anyway. Patents on software should never be granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the first place. In case the lawsuits goes forward it can take a long time (months of legal bills); it’s very expensive to take this up to the Federal Circuit, and exceptionally difficult to get SCOTUS to even listen/consider. Either way, the lawyers always win. Mind this new piece from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP’s Adriana L. Burgy and Thomas L. Irving. They try to lure clients into lawsuits, not properly informing them about the risk. There’s no “Favorable Seas”; quite the contrary.

“That’s just 35 U.S.C. § 101 in action.”In the words of this new article (“‘Section 101 Day’ Yields Quick Ruling On Patent Eligibility”): “Sitting behind the bench at the Wilmington, Delaware, federal courthouse, Chief Judge Leonard Stark explained that his docket had become flooded with legal briefs arguing that a patent covers ineligible material…”

That’s just 35 U.S.C. § 101 in action. Similar things happen at the Office too, but patent maximalists such as Janal Kalis look really hard (exhaustively) for the exceptions. Here’s the latest one: “The PTAB Reversed an Examiner’s [35 U.S.C. §] 101 Rejection of Claims for “producing shipping labels based on information included in a shipping uniform resource identifier” But Affirmed the Examiner’s 102 and non-statutory double Patenting Rejection: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017004956-02-06-2019-1 …”

Unified Patents published a string of overnight posts last night [1, 2, 3, 4]. It’s going after a bunch of software patents which are leveraged in bulk by a satellite of Qualcomm. To quote Unified Patents: “Velos claims to have and seeks to license patents allegedly essential to the HEVC / H.265 standard. The ’365 patent is part of a family of patents that were originally assigned to Qualcomm Inc. and transferred to Velos Media in 2017. After conducting an independent analysis, Unified has determined that the ‘365 patent is likely unpatentable.”

They are tackling several such patents (US 8,964,849, US 9,930,365 and US 9,979,981 were named last night) and they would be wise the do the same to MPEG-LA, whose cartel is a lot broader and recently chased companies in Europe for ‘protection’ money, even if software patents are not valid in Europe. We’ll focus on Europe in our next post.

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. 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)

  2. 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

  3. 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)

  4. 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

  5. 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

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

    Links for the day

  7. 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

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

    Links for the day

  9. 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

  10. 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’

  11. 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"

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

    Links for the day

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

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

    Links for the day

  18. 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.”

  19. 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.

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

    Links for the day

  21. 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)

  22. 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)

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

    Links for the day

  24. 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

  25. 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.

  26. 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?

  27. 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)

  28. 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)

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

    Links for the day

  30. Microsoft Peter is a Pedophile, Arrested Without Bail

    "Microsoft Peter" turns out to be a very sick man, much like people who apply for a job at Microsoft, knowing the company's dirty dealings and crimes

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