THE LONG BATTLE against software patents carries on. Progress was made over the years, good news came our way on occasions, but amid some won battles there's still a lost war. The EPO and USPTO continue granting loads of software patents and many accused parties (defendants or those subjected to threats without an actual lawsuit) cannot afford lengthy legal battles and appeals. It can cost a couple million dollars for just one single patent if one considers the appeal routes in the US. When it comes to patents granted by the European Patent Office, the cost depends on the country or countries of enforcement.
"We've moved from professors of science to a bunch of so-called civil 'servants' who serve nobody but law firms, helping them hijack every aspect of a system originally envisioned as promoter of science."António Campinos and his appointer lack scientific background and they never created anything, not even code. They're just what they seem on the surface; they're cheap and dishonest politicians. They're manipulators.
Compared to them, the 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101-hostile Andrei Iancu is 'class act'. Sure, he got the job because of Donald Trump and his constant promotion of software patents (even before he netted this job) helped him. But at least he has some background in science. The same can be said about some past EPO presidents and past USPTO Directors, including Iancu's predecessors.
"What good are patent offices that boast incredible 'production' where that production is basically a production of rubbish?"What happened in Europe is rather sad. We've moved from professors of science to a bunch of so-called civil 'servants' who serve nobody but law firms, helping them hijack every aspect of a system originally envisioned as promoter of science. With the UPC dead the EPO now realises that it cannot fool justice or spit in Justices' faces. Sooner or later it spits down on them. It all comes crashing down, just like a growing number of European Patents (we're adding some new examples of these to Daily Links).
What good are patent offices that boast incredible 'production' where that production is basically a production of rubbish? What good are a million patents half or more of which are of dubious quality and likely not valid (formal invalidation takes a pricey process, which must be initiated by someone).
"Obviously the law firms love it; it's not "their problem" per se when a client gets fake patents, which turn out to be worthless."Earlier this week we saw Janal Kalis and others mentioning the latest nonsense from the USPTO, boasting what it really ought not boast about. Instead of demonstrating that courts increasingly affirm its decisions the USPTO brags about ignoring SCOTUS and the Federal Circuit, which is a really dumb thing to do. The USPTO is telling stakeholders and applicants that it will be easier to get bogus patents, no matter their toothlessness in actual courts. They actively reduce confidence or certainly, then misuse the concept of "predictability".
Obviously the law firms love it; it's not "their problem" per se when a client gets fake patents, which turn out to be worthless. We know who pays the price for such a fluke; it's not the law firms, which charge hourly...
A post by Charles Bieneman, a dedicated proponent of software patents (his whole blog is about that), said this:
According to a recent report by the USPTO’s Chief Economist, the Federal Circuit’s 2018 Berkheimer decision and the USPTO’s January 2019 patent-eligibility guidance have reduced both the frequency and uncertainty of examiners’ patent-eligibility rejections under and 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 and the Alice/Mayo test.
Anecdotally, for a number of months it has seemed that examiners were making fewer patent-eligibility rejections than they had been in the years following Alice. The January 2019 guidance in particular, as I wrote at the time, seemed designed to reduce Alice rejections. As this graph illustrates, that has proven to be true. Alice rejections peaked prior to Berkheimer; the USPTO points to its April 2018 memorandum modifying ۤ 101 examination procedure in light of Berkheimer as accelerating the downward trend. But again, the dramatic downturn in patent-eligibility rejections occurred after the January 2019 guidance.
"How is that a good thing?"We pointed this out earlier this year after the USPTO had reported its so-called 'results', which showed growth in low-quality patents.
Sounds familiar? Yes, the EPO.
Eileen McDermott of Watchtroll has just published "A Look at the Data: USPTO Chief Economist Analyzes Effects of Section 101 Guidance on Predictability in New Report"
Predictability in courts?
No.
The opposite.
"Predictability in courts? No. The opposite."Apart from parroting the talking points of Andrei Iancu, what these people do is celebrate violation of and deviation from the law.
Dennis Crouch wrote: "The chart above comes from the USPTO Chief Economist’s office and is explained in the USPTO’s new report on Post-Alice Examination of Eligibility."
That never names this Chief Economist. In the EPO it seems to be some prop of Battistelli, whom we wrote about many times before. They're docile and obedient to a particular agenda; neither independent nor objective. The whole thing is just a marketing charade. Their message is, send us more applications and we'll grant lots of them!
In Twitter the USPTO wrote: "Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp. led to a rise in patent application rejections in certain tech areas (software). Our report shows how this trend was significantly reduced after issuance of revised patent examination guidelines in 2018 and 2019..."
"What are they hoping to accomplish here? They say nothing about the affirmation rates (as per US courts or even PTAB)."They have included a PR/marketing-type animation. Translation or meaning of it? Well, a Trump appointee is breaking the law to grant many illegal patents and fake 'growth'...
What are they hoping to accomplish here? They say nothing about the affirmation rates (as per US courts or even PTAB). The USPTO now mimics illegal behaviour of EPO management and hardly even hides this agenda. As this response to the USPTO put it: "Your illegal guidelines are not in line with Alice. Someone should submit them to Court for a legal challenge."
The original page says:
A new USPTO study finds that the 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International significantly increased the percentage of Section 101 rejections in first office actions received by patent applicants and, importantly, increased the degree of uncertainty facing applicants in the examination process. In two subsequence examiner guidance documents, the USPTO largely reversed these effects. Read more about the image below.