THE past week, based on our media survey, showed a rise in attacks on PTAB (compared to the prior week). We are guessing that these attacks will intensify as Oil States (SCOTUS decision) draws near. It's all about PTAB.
"We are guessing that these attacks will intensify as Oil States (SCOTUS decision) draws near."There have been fewer attacks on PTAB lately (slowdown for the anti-PTAB lobby), so here comes Dennis Crouch complaining again about lack of opinions (to slow PTAB down). It wasn't just Crouch/Patently-O. Two anti-PTAB articles were published by Watchtroll on Monday and two more anti-PTAB articles came on on Tuesday, e.g. picking on the bogeyman Google (there are many cases/petitions every single day, so it's not hard to cherry-pick). Watchtroll carried on the following day (Wednesday). To us that just looks like lobbying at work, so we prefer not to link to all these examples. We're merely observing.
Another PTAB basher, "Patent Buddy", carried on with that anti-PTAB narrative, neglecting to note that PTAB is typically petitioned to deal with patents not at random; they take on some of the most problematic ones.
"...rest assured, Watchtroll will carry on with PTAB bashing. Not even anything new, just old stuff recycled.""On January 24," he wrote, "the PTAB affirmed Seven 101/Alice Rejections by Examiners and Denied One Request for Reconsideration. No 101 Rejections Were Reversed."
"On January 25," he later added, "the PTAB Published 8 Decisions on 101 Issues. 5 Decisions Affirmed Examiner Rejections. 1 Decision Affirmed in Part. 2 Decisions Reversed Examiners."
Here's one pertinent example of the exception: "PTAB Reversed 101 Rejection of Philips Patent Application for a Device for Measuring Vital Signs..."
The patent trolls recently joked that this is the sort of thing they deem to be a "win" and are celebrating. Here's more: "PTAB Reversed Examiner's Rejection of a Mechanical Device under 101..."
We're basically talking about a mere patent application here.
"Another PTAB basher, "Patent Buddy", carried on with that anti-PTAB narrative, neglecting to note that PTAB is typically petitioned to deal with patents not at random; they take on some of the most problematic ones."Paul Morinville and Watchtroll wrote that "PTAB has a kill [sic] rate of over 90%. Alice v. CLS Bank’s abstract idea is killing [sic] 67%."
That's good. It's not a "killing" or a "kill" (they try to make PTAB seem combative and aggressive).
Here's the context (more of that sickening drama about "innovation" which we've just rebutted):
Killing the fictitious patent troll has already strangled U.S. innovation in the cradle. All three branches of the government rapidly changed every aspect of the patent system to work against the small for the benefit of the large. Today, the PTAB has a kill rate of over 90%. Alice v. CLS Bank’s abstract idea is killing 67%.
"There's a false assumption here that lawyers give the best advice; they often advise so to as to maximise their own profits and sell the most expensive 'products', e.g. lawsuits."See the reply from IAM: "If bad patents get litigated, the patent owner is being stubborn and/or is receiving bad advice. Crucially, by definition he/she/it will lose. The killer issue in the US is the cost of litigating and how costs are (not) allocated. [...] It's worth remembering that for deep pocket, efficient infringers the cost of US patent litigation - with the PTAB now thrown in - is a huge benefit."
I then responded to IAM: "And who's to say that bad advice isn't being given by selfish/greedy lawyers?"
There's a false assumption here that lawyers give the best advice; they often advise so to as to maximise their own profits and sell the most expensive 'products', e.g. lawsuits. ⬆