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


The UPC/SEP/FRAND Lobby Has Resorted to Just Insulting the Opposition

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:58 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: The SEP/Patent Trolls’ Lobby Insults the Victims, Calling Them “Free Riders”

Alex Robinson
He was talking about readers of Kluwer Patent Blog (because they don’t agree with him about UPC)

Summary: Team UPC proudly shuts opposing views out of the debate and then brags about it, in order for a legislation that benefits patent trolls to slide through like a Trojan horse, without resistance from the ‘wrong’ people (like scientists and technologists) or a ‘nuisance’ like facts, constitutions, laws and so on

THE distinguished lack of manners in EPO management extends to its loud supporters from Team UPC. There’s barely even room for a rational debate anymore. Here we see Team UPC, after it increased censorship (it promotes patent trolls’ agenda while blocking critics) saying: #NowWithReducedTrolling

“There’s barely even room for a rational debate anymore.”As if UPC critics are "trolls" and "idiots". This one particular individual is calling people whom he doesn’t agree with (because they threaten his financial interests as well as patent trolls’) “trolls”. The irony…

A fellow Team UPCer, Brian Cordery from Bristows, wrote this misleading blog post earlier this week while making these extraordinary claims about UPC: “UK is expected to be ready in February (see here) and the German parliament has passed a draft law (see here) with promulgation on hold due to the case pending in the German Federal Constitutional Court.”

“It’s worth noting that Team UPC is also pushing SEP/FRAND (there’s a correlation there, especially among the motivations of their large clients).”Team UPC has basically just lied (yet again) about the situation/process in both Britain and Germany. Cordery makes the UPC sound so inevitable. So he is either deluded or intentionally lying (neither is particularly flattering a possibility). Team UPC has become like a demented person; no matter how many times you remind them of something obvious (facts), they ‘forget’ it, resort to their “alternative facts”, then claim innocence. It’s pretty worrying to think that these people provide professional legal advice to firms and people, and charge for it at extortionate rates.

It’s worth noting that Team UPC is also pushing SEP/FRAND (there’s a correlation there, especially among the motivations of their large clients). Managing IP, which pushes hard for the UPC, as recently as days ago amplified the notorious SEP/FRAND lobby (basically a hefty patent tax that helps exclude from the market small/new companies). It first wrote about SEP in Europe (authored by Battistelli’s old friend James Nurton, who quotes the patent microcosm and not actual technologies impacted by SEP). From the outline:

Both patent owners and implementers have welcomed the European Commission’s communication on standard essential patents. Does that mean it has successfully balanced competing interests or merely dodged the difficult questions? James Nurton investigates

A second article about SEP is centered around Ericsson’s troll (called Unwired Planet):

The fourth US bench trial to determine a FRAND royalty is the first to use a top-down approach, and has parallels to the UK’s Unwired Planet decision. Managing IP also reports on a possible change in the Department of Justice’s approach to SEPS and analyses Huawei’s win over Samsung in China

We are sadly seeing coverage about these matters (FRAND, SEP, UPC) mostly coming from people who stand to profit from these. They’re not journalists but lawyers and/or their front groups. Watch what IAM has just said: “It’s not just wicked foreigners that undermine US IP. Someone should tell the president that American patent owners are likely to have more success enforcing their rights in countries like Germany and China than they are at home. twitter.com/commercegov/st… [] China’s a big market for Apple. Talk of IP trade wars may make them a touch nervous down Cupertino way! Chinese mobile companies, on the other hand, have only a tiny footfall in the US. twitter.com/iam_magazine/s… [] Top 10 smartphone sellers in China for 2017: 1. Huawei (102 million) 2. Oppo (78) 3. Vivo (72) 4. Apple (51) 5. Xiaomi (51) 6. Meizu (17) 7. Gionee (15) 8. Samsung (12) 9. Lephone (5) 10. Lenovo (2) Source: GfK chinadaily.com.cn/a/201801/31/WS…”

“Those who don’t agree with them are being framed as some sort of a “foreign plot” and there’s nothing they won’t do to demonise voices of reason…”This was said in a slightly different context than SEP, but the message is the same. Those who don’t agree with them are being framed as some sort of a “foreign plot” and there’s nothing they won’t do to demonise voices of reason (they’ve already attempted to call me a Russian stooge).

Be careful of Team UPC; they rarely if ever argue from reason, they just argue for money (theirs).


The Lobby for Software Patents — Including Microsoft-Connected Law Firms — Clings Onto One Patent From a Microsoft-Sponsored Patent Troll

Posted in America, Deception, Microsoft, Patents at 11:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

It helps to follow the money…

Microsoft Finjan stake

Summary: There’s no evidence that software patents are coming back to the US any time soon, but lobbyists of this ’cause’ (like the firm of Bill Gates’ father) obsess over a single patent of the Microsoft-sponsored Finjan, hailing it as some sort of ‘evidence’ of a resurgence

THE UNITED STATES is certainly moving away from software patents. Don’t be misled by those who claim otherwise. They’re typically those who stand to gain (financially) from the practice of patenting algorithms — not because they actually develop software/write code but because they work for law firms that milk coders. I have been writing about it since my early 20s and I know how these people think. They’re not honest. They tend to be pretty greedy and they justify their lies to themselves (e.g. about coders needing patents and about software patents having ‘teeth’ in the UK).

Earlier today the Indian press published something titled “Where is Indian science headed?” It looked OK until the following sentence: “Software patents have been on the rise vis-a-vis pharma patents and this is MNC-driven, especially at the US end.”

What planet is he living on?! The US cracks down on software patents. The only thing on the rise is invalidation of software patents.

Record year for PTAB, as we noted here before, is something that even foes of PTAB find themselves having to admit today (IAM’s own headline said “PTAB breaks records” a few hours ago). PTAB is very important because it eliminates many USPTO-granted software patents, even when there’s no lawsuit but merely a threat of one (trolls do this a lot, especially to poor people/businesses because it keeps the racket safer from scrutiny). There’s nothing new to see in that IAM article; IAM is just reprinting charts from RPX and Unified Patents. Let’s pretend for a moment that IAM is serious journalism and not just lobbying. Oh, wait; never mind… that would be hard to pretend.

Let’s look at how the patent microcosm is attempting to spin decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). CAFC has just agreed (as usual) with PTAB and threw away a bad patent (not about software, but problematic for other reasons). Donald Zuhn wrote about it:

Last week, the Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board of claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 6,284,471 as being unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting. Janssen Biotech, Inc. and New York University (“Janssen”), co-assignees of the ’471 patent, argued on appeal that obviousness-type double patenting was not applicable because the safe-harbor provision of 35 U.S.C. § 121 protected the ’471 patent claims. In affirming the Board’s decision, however, the Federal Circuit determined that the ’471 patent was not entitled to safe-harbor protections.


The opinion concludes with the panel finding to be unpersuasive Janssen’s argument that the Board erred by failing to apply a two-way test for double patenting. Instead, the panel concluded that Janssen failed to establish that the PTO is “solely responsible” for any alleged delay associated with the issuance of the ’471 patent. Finding that the ’471 patent was not entitled to safe-harbor protections, and that the Board did not err in applying the one-way test for double patenting, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s rejection of claims 1–7 of the ’471 patent as being unpatentable under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.

The Federal Circuit (CAFC) almost always agrees with PTAB. In 2016 and 2017 estimates stood at about 80% validation rate (CAFC validating the PTAB’s judgments in 4 out of 5 cases). The patent microcosm does not like pointing it out because it wants us to think that PTAB does mock trials or is a “kangaroo court” (Watchtroll used that smear yesterday).

Here is something we found curious this morning. Nolan R. Hubbard and Kenneth C. Liao from K&L Gates (the firm of Bill Gates Sr. and hence somewhat of a Microsoft proxy) continue to lobby for software patents in the US. Microsoft can pretend to have nothing to do with it, but over the years we covered the many overlaps at K&L Gates. They actually use as their CAFC case study this Microsoft-sponsored patent troll, Finjan. To quote a portion:

Many software-related and business method-related patents have been invalidated for being directed to “abstract ideas.” On January 10, 2018, in Finjan, Inc., v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that Finjan’s U.S. Patent No. 6,154,844 (“the ’844 patent”) [1] was not directed to an abstract idea and was therefore patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court’s threshold test for patent eligibility under § 101 is “whether the claims focus on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” [2] The court’s recent decision provides additional guidance regarding the types of claims that constitute specific improvements in computer capabilities rather than being abstract ideas. The court additionally ruled on issues of infringement and damages.

They must love Finjan — a troll case that we first covered weeks ago (we have written approximately half a dozen times about it since). Also today there’s this article titled “The Current State of Computer Software Patentability” (sounds authoritative enough a headline). “It’s hard to predict the future of computer software patentability,” says Adam Richards (sales and marketing person), who tries to sneak in software patents in spite of Alice. From his column which cites Microsoft cases like Enfish (CAFC level):

The intellectual property protection of software is extremely important for every industry. After all, the modern society depends on computer software. However, the intellectual property of it has been debated in recent years. Back in 2014, the United States Supreme Court made a huge patent decision. They stated that simply adding computer language to ordinary aspects of technology were not enough for someone to deserve a patent.

Before this decision was made, many thought that software patents would be completely eliminated. The Supreme Court decided not to take it that far and noted that software patents will still be allowed. Nevertheless, in order for someone to earn a patent, they would have to either improve an existing technological process or improve the functioning of the computer. Following this decision, a lot of patents became invalid since district court judges figured that most of them were simply abstract ideas that never even deserved a patent to begin with. It also became harder to obtain software patents because of the expectations.


It’s hard to predict the future of computer software patentability. After all, there haven’t been a lot of cases where a software invention was eligible for a patent. However, each case helps inventors learn more about how to determine patent eligibility for their innovations. Every company is encouraged to at least try and see if their software patents could be valid, even though the odds are against them.

The odds are indeed against them. Last year CAFC threw away pretty much every software patent. The Supreme Court won't overturn its judgment on Alice-type cases any time soon (if ever).

CAFC has meanwhile moved to ruling on another patent case involving so-called 'Divided Infringement' (capitalised even because it became somewhat of a formal term). As one law firm has just explained it:

Reaffirming the breadth of the Akamai standard for divided infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a summary judgment of non-infringement where two steps of a four-step method for luggage screening were performed by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) rather than by the defendant. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, Case Nos. 16-2386; -2387; -2714; 17-1025 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 19, 2017) (O’Malley, J).

We certainly hope that CAFC and the Supreme Court won’t do anything irrational in the sense that it feeds hopes of a software patents resurgence. One troll case where one patent among many survived the Section 101 test is hardly hope, except for wishful thinkers looking to deceive readers/clients.


The Patent Microcosm Maintains the Illusion That Relative US Demise (e.g. in Innovation) is Due to Patent Reform

Posted in America, Asia, Deception at 3:52 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

China had been rising for quite some time, long before it embraced patent maximalism

A Chinese man in Singapore

Summary: With the emergence of high-tech in Korea, China and Singapore (among other Asian states) it’s simply unreasonable to blame US demise on patent reform; yet this is exactly what the patent maximalists are dishonestly doing this month

THERE is a strand of articles about number of patents, number of scientific papers and general indices that claim to have accurately ranked countries based on innovation, science and technology etc. In pretty much all of them the major takeaway is that the US is down and China is up. That in itself makes a ‘good’ (selling lots of ads through hits) headline.

We mentioned this last week because the patent microcosm is exploiting such reports to its own advantage; the patent extremists want policymakers to think that all this is attributable to changes in patent policy. That is of course nonsense, but it carries on unabated. I’ve already challenged or personally confronted such claims, but patent extremists still see this is a lobbying opportunity. They want politicians to believe that making trolls “great again” will magically restore US leadership.

“But they have an agenda to sell. They’re therefore interjecting their own cause-and-effect or false correlations into figures.”Perhaps a little belatedly, Watchtroll continues its ritualistic attacks on patent reform. It now piggybacks the above delusion, claiming that all US problems are due to or reducible to patent policy. It’s amplified by other patent extremists, who love using “China!” as their excuse for anything bad and somehow believe that all the US has to offer is a pile of patents.

Thankfully, the CCIA’s Josh Landau already wrote a quick rebuttal to that. To quote:

During 2017 we saw the 5 year anniversary of the America Invents Act and 7 years of post-Bilski jurisprudence (including Mayo, Myriad, and Alice). And there are also reports that innovation in the U.S. is falling. That makes it a good time to look at the real world impacts of these changes on innovation. The evidence is in, and the evidence shows that the state of U.S. innovation is strong.


In other words, U.S. industries continue to be leaders in a wide range of technologies. Changes in patent law have not hurt their ability to compete or to innovate.

IAM has taken things further so as to speak about Brexit in the context of these indices. “Note how many EU member states are ranked above the Brits,” it wrote. However, we have not even left the EU (at least not yet), so leaping to the conclusion that it is the fault of “Brexit” is also too superficial a judgment. But they have an agenda to sell. They’re therefore interjecting their own cause-and-effect or false correlations into figures.


Another Blow for the Unitary Patent (UPC) as More Delays Are Confirmed, Court Won’t Rule on Constitutional Issues Any Time Soon

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 7:32 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Bonus: CIPA is now fully embracing Battistelli, whose abuses are beneficial to Team UPC

UPC boat

Summary: The terrible state of the Unified Patent Court has just gotten even more terrible; The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), however, continues to tell a lot of lies and even joins hands with Battistelli to tell those lies to politicians

THE EPO‘s management is desperately looking for allies. Including IP Kat, which it already threatened for ‘daring’ to publish true information. CIPA’s leadership, which took leadership positions at IP Kat last year (relinquished earlier this year), is already posing for photos with Battistelli. CIPA is basically trying to ruin the British industry for the sake of litigation ‘business’ (to be further boosted by a UPC-like framework). Battistelli’s EPO has already begun corrupting British academia [1, 2], paying some universities to produce lobbying material with which to lobby the German court. How much more corrupt can the EPO get? Or low will it stoop?

“The EPO has already submitted its lies, no doubt bolstered by paid-for ‘academics’ (willing to sell out for some EPO budget).”According to JUVE’s editor, the “German Constitutional Court expects one more amicus brief. Date to submit it has been extended for German Bundestag to 31st of January, a spokesman confirmed to JUVE…”

So here we go. Delays again. The EPO has already submitted its lies, no doubt bolstered by paid-for ‘academics’ (willing to sell out for some EPO budget).

Thomas Adam responded to JUVE. He is a Simmons & Simmons patent litigator from Munich (much to gain financially from UPC litigation). He wrote: “No wonder since I am told that Bundestag took the decision to instruct counsel only around 12 December, 2017. Of course, they can now piggy-back on the briefs that have been published by now.”

“I personally think that CIPA has just committed reputational suicide by publicly sucking up to Battistelli.”Mr. Adam is no longer known as “UPC tracker” (he changed his Twitter username), perhaps seeing the writings on the wall (not enough to “track”). Even those people — deep down inside at least — are begrudgingly giving up on the UPC while calling “trolls” and "idiots" those with sobering messages.

“Forever delays for UPC discussions means people move on,” I told him, and “Battistelli is out soon…”

I personally think that CIPA has just committed reputational suicide by publicly sucking up to Battistelli. Watch what they wrote in Twitter (as if the Liar in Chief is a trustworthy voice of authority): “President Battistelli of @EPOorg makes it clear – #Brexit will have NO EFFECT on the work of UK patent attorneys at the EPO” (it will actually, as they themselves admitted thousands of times before).

“Brexit would mean less business from the EU. One of their key skills is the English language; after Brexit (if it happens) things change profoundly for the legal ‘industry’ that’s centered in and around London.”Who are they kidding?


Brexit would mean less business from the EU. One of their key skills is the English language; after Brexit (if it happens) things change profoundly for the legal ‘industry’ that’s centered in and around London. Heck, maybe Ireland will get a lot of their ‘business’. Here is what CIPA wrote in its own Web site about what it did with Battistelli:

They discussed progress made by the UK on the ratification of the Unified Patent Court Agreement and the likelihood of ratification in the coming months. CIPA and other leading UK IP organisations called on the UK Government to provide legal certainty regarding the UPC in a paper published last month

What they mean to say is that they are lobbying Sam Gyimah et al, probably telling them the usual lies about the UPC (behind closed doors). Watch what fellow patent extremists are writing, linking to this new video from CIPA. The title of the video, in its own right, is a lie: “European patent work unaffected by Brexit” (Nope! A lie!).

The shambles at the EPO are rather costly; a lot of talent has been lost, reputation was destroyed, budget was wasted corrupting media and academia, and a private pub was secretly set up for Mr. Battistelli at the expense of the Office. As one reader of ours put it some hours ago, the expenses go even further (lining the pockets of lawyers):

If one considers the sum total of the payments (reimbursements, back payments, moral damages, legal expenses etc.) to the complainants imposed by the ILO-AT to the EPO in just one session, the 125th, one realizes that it is over half a million Euros.

This is user’s money that the mis-management, arrogance and disregard of the rule of law of Mr Battistelli and his team of incompetent persons (Lutz, Bergot, Topić etc.) has wasted in unnecessary disputes with the employees of the EPO.

There’s more to come in the next sessions.

These alleged managers are a disgrace for the Organisation, which before their arrival was financially and legally healthy,

A couple of years ago, according to Dr. Glyn Moody’s detailed report, “the EPO’s spokesperson mentioned the imminent arrival of the unitary patent system as an important reason for revising the EPO’s internal rules…”

Never forget the correlation between the UPC and the attacks on EPO staff.


Sam Gyimah Replaced Jo Johnson More Than a Fortnight Ago, But Team UPC Has Ignored It Until Now

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 9:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sam Gyimah

Summary: Another great example of Team UPC intentionally ignoring facts that don’t suit the UPC agenda and more misinformation from Team UPC (which now suppresses comments expressing the ‘wrong’ views)

IT IS not news. It was reported on early in the month. Team UPC could report it more than two weeks ago, but it did not. How convenient, as usual. It also reported absolutely nothing about the British government/Parliament totally removing the UPC from the agenda (after it had been put there).

“Team UPC could report it more than two weeks ago, but it did not.”Sam Gyimah, who is relatively young for a politician, replaces another young politician, whom we criticised for being inexperienced in his domain (still, Donald Trump even appoints officials who have only just graduated from college). This morning we wrote about Bristows mentioning it weeks late (while also distorting the facts or making stuff up) and this afternoon it was Michael Loney who belatedly covered it:

Sam Gyimah, member of UK parliament for East Surrey, has been confirmed as the UK IP minister

The above publisher is close to EPO management and has helped promote the UPC for years. Perhaps they realise that they can’t go on ignoring the fact that Jo Johnson is history. His words, his infamous photo op with crooked Battistelli, all that lobbying et cetera? Perhaps all in vain. Is Gyimah already being showered with brown-nosing ‘advice’ from Team UPC? It’s not unthinkable. Bristows is brown-nosing judges. Bristows has gone out of its way to possibly speak to UK-IPO off the record, then fabricating statements to the desired effect (soon to be repeated by Loney’s publisher). It does not get more despicable than this because later on they call those who call them out “trolls” and "idiots". Says a lot about their arrogance.

“But these liars would have us believe that the UK (i.e. Gyimah, who is new on the job and has other priorities as he settles in) will imminently push for ratification.”Kluwer Patent Blog, which now has an even more restrictive commenting policy (to shield the UPC from critics), has a new post today. Not only time delay/moderation is in place; there are now further restrictions to guard the UPC from critics. “Kluwer Patent blogger” (i.e. probably Bristows in hiding) pushes out another bit of UPC advertising. It did so earlier today and there are no comments. How convenient. They ‘crushed’ the resistance by technically silencing it. “As long as Germany hasn’t ratified the UPCA,” it concludes, “the Unitary Patent system cannot launch.”

And Britain also. Obviously. But these liars would have us believe that the UK (i.e. Gyimah, who is new on the job and has other priorities as he settles in) will imminently push for ratification. Gyimah and his wife are very well educated; they’re not in the job because of kinship (Boris Johnson) and will be harder for Team UPC to bamboozle/manipulate.


PTAB Engages in Patent Justice, But Lobbyists of Patent Trolls Try to Blame PTAB for All the Problems of the US and Then Promote Iancu

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 3:29 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Related: Further Scrutiny of Andrei Iancu Shows That He’s on Both Sides of Troll Battles and PTAB Battles

Photo credit: The American Lawyer

Andrei IancuSummary: In an effort to curtail quality control at the US patent office, voices of the litigation ‘industry’ promote the irrational theory that the demise of the US is all just the fault of patent reform

THE appeals (or petitions) at the USPTO are working. Many patents are being invalidated when they lack merit. Thanks to PTAB…

Michael Loney, the managing editor of Managing IP, took note of (and apparently graphed) the effects of PTAB fees going up after all the PTAB shaming. It’s no secret that patent extremists have bullied USPTO officials into making PTAB less accessible (less affordable) and as Loney explained: “The increase in PTAB fees on Jan 16 had an impact on petition filing. Spike of 37 petitions on Jan 15 per Docket Navigator. As well as smaller but significant numbers of 18 petitions on Jan 12 and 10 on Jan 11…”

Last year was another record year for PTAB; will that trend carry on in spite of these price hikes? We shall see.

Meanwhile, Loney takes note of Allergan’s troubles amid its patent “scam” (attempting to dodge PTAB by misuse of tribal immunity). “There are now about a dozen class-action antitrust lawsuits pending against Allergan”, he wrote, “that allege “a multi-pronged effort to block generic versions of Restasis from coming to market.””

So Allergan not only resorted to patent scams but also let poor people die in the process. We hope that PTAB will soon invalidate all those patents that Allergan is trying to shelter behind tribes. Allergan knows darn well why it’s trying to avoid PTAB.

Dennis Crouch also wrote about Allergan. The firm is collapsing, it already faces multiple probes, it is laying off staff and it engages in patent scams. Here is what Crouch said:

There are now about a dozen class-action antitrust lawsuits pending against Allergan that allege “a multi-pronged effort to block generic versions of Restasis from coming to market.


The outcome of the antitrust lawsuits will at least partially depend upon the pending PTAB IPR proceedings. The patents at issue were invalidated following a bench trial in the E.D.Tex. with Federal Circuit Judge Bryson sitting by designation as the trial court. Allergan has appealed that order.

In this particular case, PTAB does a public service outside the context of patents alone. Allergan’s abusive tactics can be stopped by invalidation of key patents.

In other news about PTAB, WiFi One makes another belated appearance. To quote:

The Federal Circuit’s softening of the appeal bar (35 U.S.C. § 314(d)) in WiFi One will now allow the Court to consider matters unrelated to the merits of an institution decision, and in some cases, well-established precedent of the Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB).

We already wrote several articles about this case. It is worth noting this comment about the EPO, bemoaning the patent microcosm’s rants about PTAB:

Lucky this wasn’t a US IPR decision. My ears wouldn’t have survived the sonic whine from the “IT’S NOT FAAAIIIIIIRRRRRRRR!!!!” brigade. Aeroplanes would have fallen from the sky and satellites knocked out of their orbits, and all because the spoiled brats are throwing their toys out of their prams.

It is NOT a point of law of fundamental importance. All points of law can have deleterious effects, but luckily I, and many others, have studied my subject. Foresight is a wonderful thing!

PTAB is meanwhile being bashed by the patent trolls’ lobby (IAM et al). Yesterday we saw the Conservative, Koch-funded lobbyist Adam Mossoff complaining about lobbying and defending patent trolls, as usual. They have a new tactic; seeing that the US is declining, based on press reports, they blame it all on AIA/PTAB/IPRs. Mossoff wrote: “It is lobbying money like this – and the hundreds of millions these companies have spent lobbying over the decade before 2017 – that created the “patent troll” narrative in D.C. and the resulting moral panic about the fundamental role of #patent rights in #innovation economy…”

Mossoff has long denied that patent trolls are a problem (let alone that they exist). Here is another new example (Moskowitz). To quote: “Score another one for Seoul while Silicon Valley slides. The U.S. dropped out of the top 10 in the 2018 Bloomberg Innovation Index for the first time in the six years the gauge has been compiled. South Korea and Sweden retained their No. 1 & No. 2 rankings.” #AIA #PTAB to blame”

I challenged him on this baseless claim and there’s quite a conversation there. He very much refused to accept that other factors played a role in this decline. “This is laughable,” I told him, “and a self-serving deception blaming patent reform for US decline…”

He stood firm with his claim nonetheless. IAM soon joined in, arguing things to the same effect. IAM cites the Chamber of Commerce as a source for some drama intended to claim that patent policy (e.g. AIA) has been the cause for a decline of the US. “DC sources tell IAM that Andrei Iancu confirmation vote for @uspto director is expected before mid-February,” it said, having also written this blog post about it:

In a confirmation hearing performance that played well with a broad range of stakeholders, Iancu gave every indication of being fully aware of some of the gripes levelled against the US patent system and made a point of calling for balance on more than one occasion. “The accused infringer in one case may be the IP owner in another and a patent owner in one area of technology or science may be a member of the public trying to design around someone else’s patent in another area,” he told the commitee. “The playing field must be even for all.”


If Iancu is confirmed by the middle of February, then his start in the job will coincide with the US Chamber of Commerce’s launch of its 2018 International IP Index, an analysis of IP regimes around the world in which the US last year slumped to 10th (tied with Hungary) in a ranking of the relative strength of countries’ patent systems. The latest index is due to be published on 8th February and if the US were to slip again it would give Iancu a sense of the scale of the task that he faces.

That last paragraph is pure propaganda from a corporate front group, the Chamber of Commerce.

There is still time to stop this appointment, which is about putting a patent ‘industry’ mole in charge of the USPTO. It’s not hard to envision what he would do.

Team UPC Has Been Reduced to Rubble and Misinformation

Posted in Deception, Europe, Patents at 2:22 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Countries with a dozen new patents (more than a thousand times less than Germany) touted as ‘progress’

Alexander Ramsay, Bristows, and the UPC gold rush

Summary: A roundup of the latest falsehoods about the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and those who are peddling such falsehoods for personal gain

THIS won’t be the first time that we point out misinformation about the UPC. We have been doing that for nearly a decade (even before “UPC” was known as UPC). Today’s post packs in it several new examples. We’ll keep it as short and concise as possible. We can soon just forget about the UPC (altogether). It will be left in the ashtray of history.


“We can soon just forget about the UPC (altogether).”The PR firm of the EPO had paid IAM to promote the UPC. This wasn’t even a secret. IAM disclosed that in its Web site. We got that. It’s a marriage of convenience and the lobbying is paid for. That IAM spread false rumours about the UPC in Spain last year (repeatedly in fact) is not OK. Why not? Because it constitutes what many people refer to as “fake news” nowadays. Never mind the ethical issues associated with lobbying…

Yesterday IAM wrote: “The Spanish government has reiterated that it will not support Spain’s membership of the UPC. Linguistically and economically – it says – the system would disadvantage Spanish SMEs. But how many Spanish SMEs have any interest in patents?”

The government is correct. IAM is wrong. SMEs would be the targets of litigation. That’s why the UPC is a threat to them. And it doesn’t offer them any benefits as very few even operate outside Spain anyway…

“The PR firm of the EPO had paid IAM to promote the UPC. This wasn’t even a secret.”I responded to IAM by saying that patent extremists, who make a living out of patent system growth (more monopolies irrespective of economic theories/evidence), will always choose to “not understand” this. IAM carried on: “Spain – a country of 46 million people and the EU’s 5th largest economy – saw a 20% decline in patent applications last year, from an already pitifully low 2,849 to 2,285. Does that tell us more about Spain or the importance of patents?”

So IAM is now bashing Spain over the number of patents, conveniently missing the point that patents are a rich countries’ game (protectionism with cost barriers).

IAM being IAM, it will carry on pushing the UPC agenda while bashing those who stand in the way or distorting their views. With EPO money in its purse, maybe that’s just “good business sense”…

Bristows LLP

The UPC is stuck, so Bristows nowadays champions "alternative facts". That says a lot about the lack of integrity of Bristows.

It Looks like Bristows staff is once again putting a mask on ("Kluwer Patent blogger") for UPC lobbying. Watch this post from yesterday and compare it to another (from the same day) by Andrew Bowler. He wants us to believe that Latvia — with barely any EPs (16 in 2016 and 8 in 2015) — matters to UPC and can revive it. “Latvia is the 15th country to ratify,” they say, and “[t]he UK is expected to ratify in the upcoming months.”

“Very few horses are left in this race; Bristows is almost on its own now.”That’s a lie. Jo Johnson left, but they did not even mention it (ever). There’s no indication that ratification is imminent. Bristows seems to have already fabricated statements to that effect.

Notice what they say at the very end: “Latvia has not yet consented to the provisional application of the UPCA or signed the UPC’s Protocol on Privileges and Immunities.”

It does not mention the UK or Germany (how convenient). “It may be worthwhile awaiting the decision of the German Constitutional Court after all,” a UPC booster noted. He too knows that therein (not in Latvia) lies the fate. We might have to wait another 2 years now (for a decision). In the meantime the world forgets about the UPC fairytale (except the UPC lobby) and might not be aware that the UPC push even exists. Very few horses are left in this race; Bristows is almost on its own now.

Support for UPC is Waning

According to JUVE’s editor: “Less to read for German Constitutional Court than expected. According to the Court these institutions have submitted opinions on the UPC case: German Government, EPOorg, EPLIT, EPLAW, BRAK, DAV, und GRUR”

“We expected to see a lot more submissions in support of UPC ratification.”And in German: “Nicht viel, aber wenigstens eine kleine Information. Laut BVerfG haben diese Institutionen eine Stellungnahme zur UPC-Beschwerde eingereicht: Bundesregierung, @EPOorg, BRAK, DAV, EPLIT, EPLAW und GRUR. Weniger zu lesen für Karlsruhe als gedacht: 7 statt 27 Gutachten”

We expected to see a lot more submissions in support of UPC ratifications. The above (at least to us) suggests that fewer bodies with a UPC stake even bothered. It’s like they already gave up.


IAM Together With Its Partner, IIPCC, is Lobbying the USPTO to Crush PTAB and Restore Patent Chaos

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 6:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Chaos means business to some people


Summary: Having handled over 8,000 petitions (according to Professor Lemley’s Lex Machina), PTAB champions patent quality at the USPTO, so front groups of the litigation ‘industry’ creep in and attempt to lobby the likely next Director of the USPTO (inciting him against PTAB, as usual)

THE USPTO is far from perfect, but we are pleased to see software patents on their way out (more so every year). Sometimes the patent microcosm tactlessly admits who the patent system is really optimised for. One person said the other day (in response to this USPTO tweet): “You really have no business encouraging patent filings from anybody other than a rich corp. If she ever tries to enforce the infringer will just file for an IPR which her family would likely be unable to defend ($300,000 plus w/ 80% chance of losing).”

“The matter of fact is, PTAB actually makes the US patent system better for small businesses too. It helps protect them from trolls.”I told him that “small business[es] can also defend themselves using PTAB” and it develop into further discussion. The matter of fact is, PTAB actually makes the US patent system better for small businesses too. It helps protect them from trolls. They are most vulnerable to trolls.

Generally speaking, patent lawyers now make a profit not only from pursuing bogus patents but also invalidating these (the “Broken Windows” theory) and as this site of patent law firms put it the other day: “New practice area evolves as more than 7,900 patent validity challenges filed at patent office since September 2012″ (impressive number).

“Generally speaking, patent lawyers now make a profit not only from pursuing bogus patents but also invalidating these (the “Broken Windows” theory)…”We hope that lawyers/attorneys will find a way to make a living out of invalidation of bad patents, not just pursuit of yet more patents. They need to ‘garden’ this place rather than throw more and more stuff at it.

“Just noticed from @LexMachina that the PTAB has passed the 8000 petition mark,” an IAM writer noted the other day, “such a big impact on the US #patent market in last 5-plus years…”

“Fantastic impact,” I responded to him. “Well done, PTAB” (he obviously hates PTAB because he works for IAM, which in turn works for trolls).

Not a day passed and he already pushed “Guest blog on why PTAB reform must be the top priority for the next director of the USPTO” (by “reform” they mean obliteration, not reform).

“We hope that lawyers/attorneys will find a way to make a living out of invalidation of bad patents, not just pursuit of yet more patents.”So the lobbying site, IAM, is attacking PTAB in order to help patent trolls, i.e. more of the usual. Who wrote this post? Here: “Robert Aronoff is the US Executive Director of the International IP Commercialisation Council, the Founder and Director of Pluritas LLC and President and COO of Underalls Inc.”

The International IP Commercialisation Council (IIPCC) does not disclose its members, but under the “Partners” section it names IAM. So maybe IAM should add some sort of disclosure. Worry not, it won’t!

What is this ‘article’ from IAM? It’s all about Andrei Iancu getting lobbied before appointment! They even cite the Lex Machina number as though it’s a bad/alarming/undesirable thing:

The PTAB recently received its 8000th petition — a landmark that few thought it would reach this quickly. No other part of the America Invents Act (AIA) has had anything like the same impact on the US patent system, winning praise in some quarters as a quick and (relatively) cheap way of challenging patent validity and condemnation in others for the shadow it has cast over IP rights. In this guest post Rob Aronoff of the International IP Commercialisation Council, explains why, for some members of the patent community, PTAB reform must be at the top of to-do list for incoming USPTO Director Andrei Iancu.

They say “incoming USPTO Director Andrei Iancu” as though it’s confirmed; it’s not. He was merely nominated (by Trump), not appointed. There seems to be some procrastination as the issue has not emerged for about a month now. And government shut-down sets in…

“The International IP Commercialisation Council (IIPCC) does not disclose its members, but under the “Partners” section it names IAM.”Trump, in the meantime, is watering down rules just like he does regulations. “As required by the Trump White House,” Patently-O wrote a few days ago, “the USPTO has continued its process of removing regulations that are “potentially outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, costly, or unduly burdensome to both government and private sector operations.” Executive Order 13777.”

Patently-O also wrote about the shut-down as follows: “The following message comes from Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce. The main point is that USPTO will remain in operation even if there is a government ‘shutdown.’”

Patently-O was apparently first to cover this, followed by Watchtroll and then by the IAM lobbyist who said: “Strong message from the @uspto that if gov shuts down agency has enough in reserve to keep operating for a few weeks…”

“Years down the line, Rader continues to reaffirm the view that he lacks a sense of ethics — the very thing that left him unemployed, under-employed, or prematurely “retired”.”Remember when IAM lobbied the Trump administration to put disgraced judge Randall Rader in charge of the USPTO? They basically liaised with Randall Rader for his shameless self-promotion. If that is not lobbying, nothing is. Years down the line, Rader continues to reaffirm the view that he lacks a sense of ethics — the very thing that left him unemployed, under-employed, or prematurely “retired”. Ever since he left CAFC (where his decisions get overturned endlessly) the court has done a spectacular job. Here he is rearing his head again. He’s planning to do a get-together with a private law firm. To quote: “Visit the Bejin Bieneman website for more information on our February webinar featuring Judge Randall Rader (Ret.).”


He got canned. And he continues to work with private firms and with IAM, which he hoped would help him get a job as USPTO Director! After he libeled PTAB (part of USPTO) as “death squads”…

« Previous Page« Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries »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




Samba logo

We support

End software patents


GNU project


EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com

Recent Posts