Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a legal facility which invalidates many software patents, still faces opposition from those who profit from software patents (not software developers)

IT IS no secret that Professor Crouch dislikes PTAB and tries to slow it down. Last night he again said something which makes it abundantly clear: "Many of us have been criticizing the Federal Circuit new proclivity to issue no-opinion judgment" (by "us" he meant patent extremists).

Well, the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cannot deal individually with each and every appeal, for reasons we explained here before. It sides with PTAB about 80% of the time. What Crouch is hoping for is a clog-up or scatter-back, that's all. Crouch likes patent maximalism (or fronts for maximalists), so whenever he covers CAFC cases, as he last did some days ago, he often given the impression that there is something wrong with PTAB. He is no exception.

Why are these people so afraid of PTAB? Here are three new examples from a patent maximalist, from his latest tweets:

• On rehearing, takes 29 PAGES 4 PTAB to explain y Hitachi #patent claim on operating an MRI machine is abstract idea https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd20150 (link)



• SAP loses patent application at PTAB under 101: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016002390-08-18-2017-1 … because calculating production costs in real time is "abstract idea" (link)



• APPLE too loses patent application at PTAB under 101: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016004427-08-07-2017-1 … now suddenly recommender systems (Amazon!) r "abstract ideas" (link)

Days ago we saw two articles about CAFC, this one from LexOrbis (it lies about software patents), which says: "The Federal Circuit's opinions in 2016 reaffirm that software remains worthy of patent protection just as any other field of technology."

Actually, that's nonsense and in 2017, or at least in recent months, they pretty much never ruled in favour of any software patents. The second article came from Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, which said: "Patent applicants for computer- and software-related inventions would be well-advised to discuss how to frame the technological improvements of their inventions with their patent attorney when drafting the patent application."

In other words, the authors advise people to come and pay them, probably in order to receive poor advice in light of cherry-picked/selective CAFC view.

It's quite incredible to see how much these people are willing to lie just to attract business and damage the reputation of PTAB. Watchtroll, for example, is again attacking Facebook because it protects/defends PTAB^* (this from 3 days ago) and Steve Brachmann from Watchtroll is once again attacking US politicians who speak about poor patent quality. Here is a passage from this attack piece (what a malicious site):

At the July 13th hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, Mapbox staffer Tom Lee had some rather explosive things to say about patents. “In general, the quality of software patents in our system seems to be very poor,” Lee testified to efficient infringer ally, patent troll and House IP subcommittee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA). Further, Lee assured members of the House IP subcommittee that he knew software engineers who would consider it “an embarrassment” to be listed as an inventor on a patent.

These politicians are actually concerned about patent quality, and rightly so. All they ever receive from the patent microcosm is abuse and scorn. ⬆ _______ ^* There is an ongoing dispute about licences (Facebook using patents to discourage forks of its code) -- a debate which is nowadays discussed in mailing lists, tracked by Simon Phipps, and led to this tweet that claimed "Facebook [is] wasting its time and money supporting software patents..."