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

05.02.16

Interesting Supreme Court Cases About Patents in the United States

Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 1:45 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Another ‘Alice’ on the way?

The bronze doors of the US Supreme Court
The bronze doors of the US Supreme Court

Summary: A quick review of some of the latest developments regarding SCOTUS (the US Supreme Court) as far as patents go

There will soon be an interesting design patent case at the Supreme Court of the United States, alongside other cases that are not about patents and some that are (some are about copyrights too). A new article by Dennis Crouch, covering a “patent-copyright parallel” (not exactly the same as in Oracle v. Google), says about one such case: “In both patent and copyright cases the issue of laches arises more often than you might think because of the legal treatment of “ongoing” infringement. Each infringing act is seen as a new act of infringement. Thus, the six-year limits period starts anew each time a new copy of the infringing product is made, sold, or used. If someone has been making an infringing product for the past 10 years, the statute would let the patentee them reach back 6 years for damages. Courts often see that result as as problematic when the patentee sits on its rights for so long (and since most civil claims have a shorter period of limitations) and thus apply the laches doctrine to limit collection of back damages even when within the six-year period.”

“Müller essentially changed sides and he is against Apple’s unreasonable patent demands these days.”“This is, incidentally,” said this one person, “the second time this term that SCOTUS has granted one copyright and one patent case in a day” (SCOTUS typically rules in favour of reformists these days, so whichever such case the Justices take under their wing would likely end well).

As Florian Müller put it in this morning’s article about design patents: “In about five weeks from now, we’ll see how successful Samsung’s mobilization efforts have been, and two months after that we’ll see the fruits of Apple’s campaigning.” The focus of Müller, however, is stated upfront in his title: “Where will the ‘friends of the Supreme Court’ come down on design patent damages in Apple v. Samsung?” Müller and I do not agree on the Oracle v. Google case (we had a long exchange about it today), but we do agree on the Samsung case. Müller essentially changed sides and he is against Apple’s unreasonable patent demands these days. If SCOTUS rules against Apple (in any of the ongoing cases), it will be good news for Google, for Android, for Free software, and for Linux. Apple has placed itself on the wrong side of history.

05.01.16

[ES] Alice Continúa Quebrando Patentes de Software Asi Que los Abogados de Patentes, Cabilderos de los Monopolistas, Etc. Ahora Atacan a la Corte Suprema por Hacer Esto

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 4:13 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Courtroom, Law, Patentes at 7:10 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos (SCOTUS) se ha convertido en el objetivo de odio de los que se enriquecen

Alice grave

Sumario: los cabilderos Corpórativos y abogados de patentes están tratándo de poner a Alicia en la tumba, por su impacto en las patentes de software que es muy profundo y así hasta ahora casi indetenible

La cada vez más famosa decisión conocida como Alice (el demandante), simplemente ha cobrado otra víctima. Es una patente de software, por supuesto. Es también un caso de alto perfil (Fitbit y Jawbone), que cubrimos aquí varias veces antes (este año y el año pasado).

La precedencia deAliceestá trabajando. No sorprende que los abogados de patentes estén en pánico.

De acuerdo a the News Corp.-propiedad del Wall Street Journal (detrás de la casa de pago), “el Juez Lord basó la emisión de una decisión de la Corte Suprema del 2014 que dice que compañías no pueden reclamar patentes de software por ideas abstractas sin conceptos inventivos.”
Aquí están los 10 más tempranos reportes acerca de ello [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] (los encontramos esta mañana, así que puedan haber más ya que es Sabado al mediodíá).
Agarra tiza o escriba una nueva victoria en la pizarra/pizarra blanca. La precedencia Alice está funcionando. No es de extrañar los abogados de patentes están en pánico.

Abogados de patentes agresivos, corporaciónes y sus promotores/ayayeros , gente como el nefásto David Kappos, ahora están en guerra contra SCOTUS misma.

“¿Por qué la S.C [Corte Supremo] no debería tomar decisiónes en los casos de patentes” es la forma en que el buddy patente describe este nuevo ataque contra el juez Stephen Breyer. No debiera ser tan difícil de entender por qué los abogados de patentes son muy molesto que SCOTUS está haciendo lo correcto (en contra de su avaricia). SCOTUS, básicamente, limita el alcance de patentes con decisiones tales como Alice, haciendo descarrilar agresor de patentes como en el ejemplo anterior (menos de un día de nacidos).

SCOTUS está interviniendo en varias otras áreas y ayer vimos este nuevo comentario que dice: “Es la opinión discutió la del Tribunal Supremo o, mejor dicho, ya que parece ser, la del 2 ° Circuito? Si el Tribunal Supremo emitió un dictamen, así como una orden, por mi parte, estaría interesado en verla “.

Los abogados de patentes agresivos, corporaciónes y sus promotores/ayayeros , gente como el nefásto David Kappos, ahora están en guerra contra SCOTUS misma. La ven como una amenaza y desean combatirla usando al Congreso (ratear de legislador a otros legisladores). Se pretende hacer de alguna manera Alice desaparezca. De acuerdo con este nuevo informe de los profesores Colleen Chien (Santa Clara University Law School) y Arti Rai (Duke Facultad de Derecho), el “USPTO fue anfitrión de una conferencia de un día de duración alrededor del primer aniversario de su mejorado de patentes Quality Initiative”, en el que, después de intensas presiones de Kappos, el predecesor de Lee, tenemos esto: “En línea con las sugerencias del estudio de caso, la USPTO tiene como objetivo abordar las preocupaciones sobre determinados tipos de rechazos examinador y consistencia a través de grupos de tecnología dentro del cuerpo de la patente. A tal efecto, será la realización de estudios sobre el uso de la sección 101 y 112 (f) los examinadores; sobre la exactitud y claridad de los estados de motivación en los rechazos obviedad en base a la combinación de referencias; y el cumplimiento de los requisitos de la descripción escrita de las solicitudes de continuación.”

Esperen que los maximalistas de patentes volteen la mesa y propóngan pasos regresivos.”

No toquen la sección 101. Ellos esperan regresar a los días pre-Alice. Otronuevo reporte dice: “La USPTO recientemente solicitó propuestas de estudios de caso que la Oficina podría hacer para mejorar la tramitación de patentes. Hubo más de 100 propuestas presentadas por asociaciones, empresas, bufetes de abogados y particulares. Definitivamente, hay algunas propuestas que la USPTO debe utilizar. [...] Todos estos son grandes propuestas, y cada uno de ellos tiene el potencial de identificar los puntos débiles, ya sea en la USPTO o confirmar que los examinadores están siguiendo directrices de la Oficina. Esperemos que la Oficina está dando a estas propuestas seria consideración.”

Esperen que los maximalistas de patentes volteen la mesa y propóngan pasos regresivos. Boris Zelkind, “un socio centrado en litigios y licencias de propiedad intelectual en la oficina de San Diego de Knobbe Martens,” acaba de decir: “Además, como las patentes continúan recibiéndo golpe tras golpe en los tribunales y en los exámenes posteriores a la concesión de la Oficina de Patentes, las empresas deben considerar si sus innovaciones son adecuadas para la protección del secreto comercial. Esto es particularmente cierto en el mundo del software, donde la decisión del Tribunal Supremo de Estados Unidos en. Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Internacional, creado retos importantes para la obtención de la protección de patentes para las innovaciones de software y hacer cumplir las patentes de software. Por lo tanto, los innovadores en la industria del software necesitar ser cada vez más conscientes de las leyes de secreto comercial y puede ser requerido a depender de dichas leyes con el fin de proteger sus innovaciones.”

Las patentes de software puedan haber caído por un round en los Estados Unidos, pero no cuenten que poderosos grupos de presión/cabildersonolas traigan de regreso porque ellos usualmente se salen con la suya (al final, tarde o temprano).”

Esto es más del mismo maximalismo. Los abogados de patentes, al ver que Alice han hecho que las patentes de software increíblemente difícil de obtener y después asegurar /valer, promueven abiertamente las leyes que criminalizan a los denunciantes – los tipos de personas que habitualmente nos ofrecen información acerca de la EPO (sin embargo, la ley de secretos comerciales está más allá del alcance de nuestra cobertura). Lo que es digno de mención aquí es que claramente hay una fuerte respuesta a Alice y nosotros debemos tomar nota de quién está detrás de él. Los desarrolladores de software están contentos con Alice, mientras que abogados de patentes y empresas de la Sagrada Familia como IBM y Microsoft (enormes agresores de patentes) quieren que la decisión quemado dentro de un cenicero.

Las patentes de software puedan haber caído por un round en los Estados Unidos, pero no cuenten que poderosos grupos de presión/cabilderso no las traigan de regreso porque ellos usualmente se salen con la suya (al final, tarde o temprano). De acuerdo aPatent Docs, PTAB (creciéndo y cada vez más comúnun enforzador deAlice) ha sido invocada de nuevo (contr si, otra tonta patente de software*, como es común en los Estados Unidos) y eventualmente denegado una revisión a CBM.

Techrightspermanece dedicado a exponer todo el marioneteo detrás de las escenas come es abundantemente claro que hay una creciénte (y ya muy fuerte) movimiénto para resucitar las patentes de software en los EE.UU.. “El precio de la libertad es eterna vigilancia,” Thomas Jefferson ya lo dijo.

____
* Esta patente de software es evidente y explica a sí mismo. Para citar: “La patente ’805 se refiere a un sistema y método para solicitar” retroalimentación específica de la página” de los usuarios de un sitio web. Los comentarios del usuario se solicita de manera específica de la página mediante la incorporación de un “elemento seleccionable por el usuario”, o “icono visible,” en cada página web del sitio web.”

04.30.16

Alice Continues to Smash Software Patents So Patent Lawyers, Monopolists’ Lobbyists Etc. Now Attack the Supreme Court for Doing This

Posted in America, Courtroom, Law, Patents at 7:10 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has become the target of the profiteers’ anger

Alice grave

Summary: Corporate lobbyists and patent lawyers are trying to put Alice in the grave, for its impact on software patents is very profound and thus far almost unstoppable

THE increasingly-famous decision, commonly known as Alice (the plaintiff), has just claimed another victim. It’s a software patent of course. It’s also a high-profile case (Fitbit and Jawbone) which we covered here several times before (this year and last year).

“The Alice precedence is working. No wonder patent lawyers are in panic.”According to the News Corp.-owned Wall Street Journal (behind paywall), “Judge Lord based the ruling on a Supreme Court decision from 2014 that said companies can’t claim software patents for abstract ideas without inventive concepts.”

Here are the earliest 10 reports about it [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] (found this morning, so there might be more by now as it’s Saturday at noon).

Chalk or write another victory up on the blackboard/whiteboard. The Alice precedence is working. No wonder patent lawyers are in panic.

“Aggressive patent lawyers/corporations and their lobbyists, people like David Kappos, now have a war on SCOTUS itself.”“Why the S.Ct [Supreme Court] Should Not Be Deciding Patent Cases” is how Patent Buddy described this new attack on Justice Stephen Breyer. It oughtn’t be so hard to figure out why patent lawyers are very upset that SCOTUS is doing the right thing (against their greed). SCOTUS basically limits patent scope with decisions such as Alice, derailing patent aggressor as in the above example (less than a day old).

SCOTUS is intervening in various other areas and yesterday we saw this new comment stating: “Is the opinion discussed that of the Supreme Court or rather, as it appears to be, that of the 2nd Circuit? If the Supreme Court issued an opinion as well as an order, I for one would be interested to see it.”

Aggressive patent lawyers/corporations and their lobbyists, people like David Kappos, now have a war on SCOTUS itself. They view it is a threat and they wish to battle it using Congress (snitching on the lawmaker to other lawmakers). They hope to somehow make Alice go away. According to this new report by Professors Colleen Chien (Santa Clara University Law School) and Arti Rai (Duke Law School), the “USPTO hosted a day-long conference around the one-year anniversary of its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative,” wherein, after intensive lobbying by Kappos, the predecessor of Lee, we have this: “In line with the case study suggestions, the USPTO aims to address concerns about particular types of examiner rejections and consistency across technology groups within the patent corps. To that end, it will be conducting studies on the use of section 101 and 112(f) by examiners; on the correctness and clarity of motivation statements in obviousness rejections based on combining references; and enforcement of written description requirements in continuation applications.”

“Expect patent maximalists to try to turn the table and propose regressive steps.”Don’t touch section 101. They’re hoping to regress back to pre-Alice days. Another new report says: “The USPTO recently requested proposals for case studies that the Office might do in order to improve patent prosecution. There were over 100 proposals submitted from associations, companies, law firms, and individuals. There are definitely some proposals that the USPTO should use. [...] All of these are great proposals, and each of them has the potential to either identify weak spots at the USPTO or confirm that examiners are following Office guidelines. Let’s hope the Office is giving these proposals serious consideration.”

Expect patent maximalists to try to turn the table and propose regressive steps. Boris Zelkind, “a partner focusing on litigation and intellectual property licensing in the San Diego office of Knobbe Martens,” has just said: “Additionally, as patents continue to take a beating in the courts and in the Patent Office’s post-grant reviews, companies need to consider whether their innovations are suited for trade secret protection. This is particularly true in the software world, where the US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, created significant challenges to obtaining patent protection for software innovations and enforcing software patents. Thus, innovators in the software industry may need to be increasingly aware of trade secret laws and may be required to rely on such laws in order to protect their innovations.”

“Software patents may be down for the count in the United States, but don’t count on powerful lobbies not to pull them back up because they usually get what they want (at the end, sooner of later).”This is more of the same kind of maximalism. Patent lawyers, seeing that Alice has made software patents incredibly hard to attain and then assert/enforce, are openly promoting laws that would criminalise a lot of whistleblowers — the types of people who habitually offer us input about the EPO (nevertheless, trade secrets law is beyond the scope of our coverage). What’s noteworthy here is that there’s clearly a strong response to Alice and we ought to take note of who’s behind it. Software developers are happy about Alice, whereas patent lawyers and companies like IBM and Microsoft (huge patent aggressors) want the decision burned inside the ashtray.

Software patents may be down for the count in the United States, but don’t count on powerful lobbies not to pull them back up because they usually get what they want (at the end, sooner of later). According to Patent Docs, PTAB (increasingly and commonly an Alice enforcer) has just been invoked again (against yet another silly software patent*, as is common in the US) and it eventually denied a CBM review.

Techrights remains dedicated to exposing all the string-pulling behind the scenes as it’s abundantly clear that there’s a growing (and already very strong) movement to revive software patenting in the US. “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance,” Thomas Jefferson famously said.
_____
* This patent being on software is evident and self-explanatory. To quote: “The ’805 patent is directed to a system and method for soliciting “page-specific” feedback from website users. User feedback is solicited on a page-specific basis by incorporating a “user-selectable element,” or “viewable icon,” into each web page of the website.”

04.23.16

[ES] Compañías Coreanas Hacen el Caso Por Patentes por Diseño Mientras la Más Grade Solicita a la Corte Suprema de los EE.UU. Deshacerce de Ellas

Posted in America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 6:37 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

English/Original

Article as ODF

Publicado en America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:05 am por el Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Samsung phone

 

Sumario: A pesar de amasar muchas patentes por diseño propias, Samsung quiere voluntáriamente interceptarlas/socavarlas cada una de ellas, en order de acabar con las demandas de Apple contra Android/Linux

LA Oficina de Patentes de los EE.UU. la USPTO, continua otorgando patentes por diseño, las que son a su vez controversiales en Europa.

Una escala/numero de patents por diseño acaban de ser presentadas por Patently-O, las que dice: “Las patentes de diseño siguen siendo un esquema de protección popular para los desarrolladores de productos de consumo y pantallas. Los diez más concesionarios por lo tanto, mucho de 2016 con la mayoría de los ejemplos recientes …”

Samsung no ha (históricamente por lo menos) sido agresivo con patentes.

Con Samsung en la cumbre, luego LGE (a quién Apple frecuéntemente acusó de plagioen diseñoscuando primero introduco su iPhone). Ambas son compañías Coreanas y un comentari corréctamente señala: “Uno no podría ser sorprendidos al notar que Samsung es altamente conscientes de las propiedades potentes de patentes de diseño.” Actualmente Samsung desafía la potencia de este tipo de patentes, tomando todo el camino hasta la Corte Suprema. En todo caso, esto puede indicar que Samsung solamente a regañadientes patenta diseños, tal vez con la esperanza de nivelar estos fines defensivos cuando compañías como Apple los ataca (con connotaciones nucleares). Samsung no ha (históricamente por lo menos) sido agresivo con patentes.

Una decisión del Circuito Federal ha puesto a Coleman Co en una posición más fuerte para enjuiciar a un competidor por infringimiento de sus patentes de diseño relacionado a aparatos personales de flotación.

   –Bloomberg BNA

Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, una firma de abogados (obviamente), acaba de publicar este artículo acerca de patents por diseño de construcción como números acerca de patentes por diseño sugieren un rápido incremento en medio de un caso que SCOTUS trajo en su contra. Como hemos explicado aquí unas pocas veces antes, muchas patentes por diseño son similares y relacionadas con las patentes de software (interfaces en particular). Su existencia es desafíada en las cortes de nuevo, como este artículo sirve para mostrar. Parece una vez más que la CAFC decide en la materia. Para citar:Recuérden que el propósito original del sistema de patetnes fue proveer un incentivo para su publicación a cambio de un monopolio temporario. A la luz de aquella premisa olvidada por mucho tiempo consideren este nuevo post de Patently-O que dice: Una decisión del Circuito Federal ha puesto a Coleman Co en una posición más fuerte para enjuiciar a un competidor por infringimiento de sus patentes de diseño relacionado a aparatos personales de flotación.

La suerte de las patentes por diseño tiene billónes en riesgo; no sólo billones de dólares/pounds/yens pero también billones de personas.

04.22.16

Korean Companies Make the Case for Design Patents While the Bigger One Asks the US Supreme Court to Shoot Some of Them Down

Posted in America, Asia, Courtroom, GNU/Linux, Google, Patents at 8:05 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Reaching the conclusion that these patents (related to software patents) are excessive and counterproductive?

Samsung phone

Summary: In spite of amassing many design patents of its own, Samsung is willing to intercept/undermine all of them, in order to shoot down Apple’s demands against Android/Linux

THE United States’ patent office, the USPTO, continues to grant design patents, which are rather controversial in Europe.

Design patentees by scale/number have just been presented by Patently-O, which said: “Design patents continue to be a popular protection scheme for developers of consumer products and screen displays. Top ten assignees thus-far in 2016 with most recent examples…”

“Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.”It’s Samsung at the top, then LGE (which Apple was often accused of copying — design-wise — when it first introduced the iPhone). Both are Korean companies and one comment rightly points out: “One might not be surprised to notice Samsung highly aware of the potent properties of design patents.” Samsung currently challenges the potency of such patents, taking it all the way up to the Supreme Court. If anything, this may indicate that Samsung only begrudgingly patents designs, maybe in the hope of leveling these for defensive purposes when companies like Apple strike (with nuclear connotations). Samsung has not (historically at least) been aggressive with patents.

“A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”
      –Bloomberg BNA
Harness, Dickey & Pierce, PLC, a lawyers’ firm (obviously), has just published this article about design patent constriction as figures about design patents suggest a sharp increase amid a SCOTUS case about/against it. As we explained here a few times before, many design patents are similar and related to software patents (interfaces in particular). Their very existence is challenged in courts again, as this new article serves to show. It seems as though once again it’s CAFC deciding on the matter. To quote: “A Federal Circuit ruling has placed Coleman Co. in a stronger position to sue a competitor for infringement of its design patent relating to personal flotation devices.”

The fate of design patents has billions at stake; not just billions of dollars/pounds/yen but also billions of people.

04.14.16

Alice (§ 101​) So Big a Concern to Patent Lawyers and Software Monopolists That Lobbying Campaigns and ‘Conferences’ Emerge to Crush or at Least Marginalise/Limit the Courts

Posted in Courtroom, Deception, Law, Microsoft, Patents at 10:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Changing the law with think tanks and lobbyists

Fordham IP Conference
Featuring Microsoft-sponsored ‘speaker’ (lobbyist), David Kappos for software patents and against § 101

Summary: Right now there is growing uncertainty over software patents and even US courts, including the highest such court (the Supreme Court), are such a threat to patent aggressors which utilise software patents to startle or bankrupt their competitors that a propaganda campaign becomes widespread

THE USPTO does not wish to comply with courts’ will. The US patent system is so greedy that it continues to grant a lot of software patents, even when most of them, once properly challenged in a court using Alice, get invalidated. There are still the occasional patent cases where in spite of Alice the software patents survive. One such case has just been covered here and it says: “The court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s network security patents encompassed unpatentable subject matter and found that the claims were not directed toward an abstract idea.”

“The US patent system is so greedy that it continues to grant a lot of software patents, even when most of them, once properly challenged in a court using Alice, get invalidated.”Meanwhile, patent maximalists are bemoaning the new post-Alice reality, quoting lots of other patent maximalists or lawyers. “It’s getting harder to patent software,” says the headline of this new article. Well, this sounds like excellent news. Software algorithms should never have been patentable in the first place. The author says: “Software patents have been under increased scrutiny for several years due to their malicious use by non-practicing entities, or patent trolls – persons or companies that do not necessarily invent or manufacture anything, but that purchase patents, often from bankrupt countries, and subsequently sue others for infringement.”

Composed by Charles Bieneman, another new article asks, “How Do Biotech Patent-Eligibility Cases Speak to Computer Patent-Eligibility Cases?”​

“They’re trying to put an end to invalidations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and they’re funded by large corporations to do so. Their clients (including Microsoft) pay them to mislead politicians and to lie to the public.”To quote the opening paragraph: “The Federal Circuit recently held that a claim of U.S. Patent No. 5,612,179, reciting “methods of detecting genetic variations” was directed to unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Genetic Technologies Ltd. V. Merial, LLC, Nos. 2015-1202, 2015-1203 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2016). Anytime the Federal Circuit weighs in on Section 101 patent-eligibility, those of us in the patent bar scramble to comprehend the potential impact to pending patent applications and issued patents alike. For those of us who practice in the computer area, the question arises: how are we informed, or are we informed, by a holding concerning patent claims directed to genetic analysis?”

It’s always noteworthy when CAFC throws away patents like these because software patents originally came from CAFC. Notice the trend now. The courts which once supported software patents no longer do. It must be a scary time to be a patent lawyer in this particular area/domain.

In his final part (part of a long paper), Robert Sachs (patent lawyer) makes it clearer that he was just pushing for software patents all along. To quote his final words: “The fictional form of the mental steps doctrine represents a significant and unwise departure from the factual form. The fictional form is untethered from the conceptual and technological attributes of computer design, the nature of human cognition, and the practical reality and value in computer-implemented inventions. The courts should return to the doctrine’s factual form, and avoid a further descent into the fact-free analysis that now characterizes patent eligibility.”

“One sure thing is, software developers are absent/left out of this whole debate.”This is becoming similar to the infamous whitepaper from David Kappos and his recent lobbying for software patents. They’re trying to put an end to invalidations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and they’re funded by large corporations to do so. Their clients (including Microsoft) pay them to mislead politicians and to lie to the public. Watch another new example of lobbying for software patents, again taking the shape of a “conference”, just like those funded by Microsoft nowadays [1, 2]. As Cathy Gellis put it: “At this conference on IP in software there’s not nearly enough discussion on WHY ON EARTH DO WE NEED IT.”

“Judge Dyk acknowledges that patent law is not limitless, and that patentable subject matter should not be completely unbounded,” Patently-O noted the other day.

Who’s going to win? The courts, the USPTO, or lobbyists and their affluent clients? One sure thing is, software developers are absent/left out of this whole debate. It’s quite a travesty really.

Totally Inappropriate: The European Patent Office is Still Intervening in European Law and Politics

Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Law, Patents at 7:48 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

A lot more than just a patent office…

EPO for UPC

Summary: For increased influence/power/profit as well as for the personal gain of patent lawyers and their richest clients (usually companies from other continents, with a track record of hazardous patent aggression) the European Patent Office (EPO) continues to promote the UPC, despite it being well outside the scope of the EPO to decide on

“Here’s our latest webinar on the Unitary Patent,” the EPO wrote earlier today. They can’t help themselves, can they? The EPO's lobbying for UPC (at whose expense? The public’s expense!) has got to stop. It promotes the self-discrediting ideas or the growing perception that laws in Europe are decided on by those who profit from them, irrespective of the interests of ordinary Europeans or even European businesses. EPO management has done a lot to legitimise such damaging perceptions. Whose office is it? The Office is just run by Europeans but not for Europeans.

Incidentally, also earlier today there was this post titled “Much Ado About Patents” from IP Kat. It alluded to the UPC and stated: “What do validation rates in EPO patents tell us? These and more questions were subject to economic scrutiny at this morning’s CREATe and Queen Mary hosted workshop.”

“The UPC needs to be dumped. It offers nothing whatsoever to Europe and a lot to non-European actors and their European patent lawyers (agents of corporate occupation).”Well, that’s assuming the speakers are truly independent and the workshop wasn’t set up with an agenda in mind. It didn’t take long for UPC to creep into it: “Leading into the Unitary Patent, there are some interesting questions on the interaction between national patents and EPO bundled patents. Are these patents complements, substitutes or neither? (Do patentees get both national and EPO patents, one or the other, or some other combination?) We have very little understanding as to how these work together on a systematic basis. (We know similarly little about the relationship between national and community trade marks and designs.)”

“Overall,” said the author, “the research suggests that EPO and national patents are complements, and not substitutes.”

So now they want to have not only multiple patent offices (for different jurisdictions) but also multiple patent courts, one for the nation and another for the continent/superstate. What happens if one rules for/against an infringement claims and another does the opposite? This is utterly ridiculous! The UPC needs to be dumped. It offers nothing whatsoever to Europe and a lot to non-European actors and their European patent lawyers (agents of corporate occupation). The UPC is just a Trojan horse.

04.07.16

Samsung to Potentially Challenge Design Patents in the US Supreme Court While Filing Patent Applications for Designs

Posted in America, Apple, Courtroom, Law, Patents, Samsung at 3:57 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Defensive, offensive, or just outright dumb and unnecessary? Hypocritical for sure.

Gates

Summary: Dumb patents on very dumb/trivial ideas (like gate-locking, or slide to unlock) still a subject which the higher US courts deem worthy of Supreme intervention (while Samsung itself joins the problem with new patent filings)

KOREAN giant Samsung, the market leader in the Android space, is an attractive target for patent lawsuits, even though conventionally Korean companies aren’t combative patent aggressors themselves (they don’t deserve the pricey defendant’s treatment). There’s no escaping the aggressors for Samsung, which even got attacked using EPO patents on software and designs (Samsung won as the EPO patents turned out to be bogus, i.e. erroneously granted).

“There’s no escaping the aggressors for Samsung, which even got attacked using EPO patents on software and designs (Samsung won as the EPO patents turned out to be bogus, i.e. erroneously granted).”Samsung is pursuing design patents of its own now, based on the latest news, e.g. [1, 2, 3] (we found more than a dozen articles about this one) and Apple’s attack on Samsung using design patents is still a subject of discussion, even 2.5 weeks after it was news. This one new blog post says: “Oral argument has not yet been scheduled, but I imagine it will be held sometime in October or November after the Court returns from its summer recess. For now, at least, it seems likely that the Court will still consist of only eight, not the full complement of nine, justices.”

By extension, a lot of design patents will be considered/assessed by SCOTUS, but why were they being granted in the first place? Designs are often covered by laws other than patent law. In the context of patents it’s common for callback functions, i.e. software (behaviour), to be incorporated into the static (visual i.e. plottable) design.

“In the context of patents it’s common for callback functions, i.e. software (behaviour), to be incorporated into the static (visual i.e. plottable) design.”As we pointed out here a long time ago, design patents are in many cases just a subclass of software patents, hence they both need to go away. MIP does not quite agree and in a very recent post about “design rights” (not quite the same as design patents) it said: “After attending the recent INTA/AIPPI conference on “Designs: Into the Future”, James Nurton summarises what there is to love about designs – and also a few reasons not to love them. On the following pages, we also look in depth at the recent Trunki decision in the UK and the pending Apple v Samsung case in the United States”

The Trunki case has been mentioned many times in our daily links. It’s truly dumb and some might call it outrageous. But it’s not about patents. There is hardly a connection/parable here. Either way, to conflate or interject it into the Apple v Samsung would only mislead.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts