Bonum Certa Men Certa

The Attacks on PTAB's Legitimacy Are Slowing Down and €§ 101 Continues to be Applied by PTAB

Software patents are being invalidated and even examiners (with feedback from PTAB) increasingly reject these before grant

A reject bin



Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) maintains its good work which reforms the Office and elevates the patent bar (narrowing scope); the USPTO is expected to see a decrease in patents this year, not just a decrease in the number of patent lawsuits

THE USPTO's PTAB needs no introduction here. We already wrote hundreds of articles about it and we commended its work, which helps raise the bar for patent examiners and thus improves patent quality in the US, disqualifies frivolous patent lawsuits before they go too far (because of profound financial damage to innocent parties that are merely being accused or threatened), gives businesses some peace of mind, and gives law firms something better to aim for (other than getting a gazillion patents on everything under the Sun).



PTAB is loved. It's loved by those who actually create something.

PTAB is only (as far as we can see) hated by people who create nothing but lawsuits.

This post will focus on the latter group (the 'haters') because we feel the need to correct/rebut them.

Last week there was a decision in Knowles and it was discussed as follows: "Knowles Elecs v Cirrus Logic, FedCir 3/1/18; 2-1 majority affirms PTAB rejections in reexam for anticipation and lack of WD for proposed cls. Panel splits over impact of Circuit's 2011 MEMS decision construing same term in same patent in ITC proceeding. Newman dissents on this."

Newman dissents on a lot of stuff (we don't want to bash her over it) and Dennis Crouch uses her dissent for his typical PTAB bashing because he's not happy with the outcome (the PDF of this precedential decision was mentioned here). This is what Crouch wrote about PTAB:

The problem, for Judge Newman, is that a decision from the PTAB’s controlling court should control the actions of the PTAB and limit its power. For its part, the PTAB generally refuses to be bound by prior claim construction decisions by District Courts, but this is the first case where the PTAB has disregarded a prior interpretation by the Federal Circuit.

Although I began with Judge Newman’s opinion. Her opinion was in dissent, the Majority (Judges Wallach and Chen) avoided the question of whether the PTAB’s must follow Federal Circuit claim construction decisions. Rather, the majority held that the PTAB construction is in “accord with the definitions adopted in Mems Tech.” Based upon this claim construction, the majority agreed that the claims were anticipated by the proffered prior art.


Why did he begin with Newman’s opinion? That sort of bias is revealing, is it not?

Maybe the patent microcosm can just pretend to itself that only one judge exists and counts. The judge whom they like. The one they always/usually agree with. But that's not how this court works. Notice the rather misleading/unhelpful title as well: "PTAB Reconstruing Claims: Estoppel?"

Poor outline of the case at hand, no? Maybe if Newman had Mexican heritage, Crouch would use another inane cartoon (or meme) of hers.

Moving on a bit, PTAB was also mentioned by Gaston Kroub of Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC. It's not a coincidence that many proponents of software patents are also proponents of patent trolls, FRAND, SEP, the UPC etc. They are also opponents of patent quality control (something like PTAB). That's just what patent maximalists are like. "It is well-known that patents are more valuable in certain industries than others," Kroub said. "Whether it is because the eligibility of certain technology for patenting is in constant question — software, meet Alice — or because of the presence of standard-essential patents with their resultant FRAND obligations, in certain industries any given patent may not be very valuable. In contrast, industries like pharmaceuticals and medical devices, where a small set of patents can cover a blockbuster drug or device, are often thought of as having valuable patents. But recent developments have helped call this orthodoxy into question, particularly with respect to drug patents."

Scroll down a bit for the anti-PTAB screed, for example: "Merck was not the only pharmaceutical giant to face an adverse decision recently. In another long-anticipated ruling, the PTAB found that Allergan’s attempt to end run the IPR process by assigning patents covering its blockbuster eye treatment Restasis to an Indian tribe would not result in the termination of the nearly-final IPRs. While the specifics of the decision are interesting, and raise important questions about the PTAB’s authority to decide issues other than patent validity, there is no doubt that the result is a blow to Allergan’s attempts to shield its Restasis patents from an ultimate invalidity finding — especially since the district court presiding over the corresponding ANDA case involving those patents had already found them invalid. Whether the generic challenger is heartened enough by this latest ruling to launch at-risk (pending Allergan’s inevitable Federal Circuit appeals) is an open question. What is clear, however, is that drug companies like Allergan are willing to try everything to keep their valuable patents alive. Despite those efforts, even the most creative (desperate?) strategies will not go far when the quality of the underlying patents are not commensurate with their purported value."

We wrote about that case earlier today. PTAB receives plenty of hate for simply doing the right thing.

Doing the right thing seems to require courage these days because a whole bunch of patent law firms then resort to paid-for 'articles', racist memes, attacks on judges, endless efforts to cause scandals, and sometimes abusive letters. We've documented these over the years.

Crouch, a PTAB-hostile writer, is among those who are stressed to see patent sanity prevailing these days. See this new post which is at least suitably titled "Electronic Medical Records: Not Eligible" (obviously).

It's about PTAB and an examiner:

IMO’s CEO Frank Naeymi-Rad along with 11 others are listed as inventors of the company’s pending Application No. 13/622,934 – recently rejected on eligibility grounds. The claims are directed to a software system for “implementing a controlled vocabulary” within a longitudinal medical record. The examiner finally rejected all 14 claims for on eligibility grounds (withdrawing the obviousness rejection) — concluding that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “providing healthcare by generating and processing medical records.”

On appeal, the PTAB sided with the examiner – holding that – at a high level of abstraction, the claims “can be characterized as collecting, storing, and organizing … and transmitting information.” Although the examiner acknowledges that the claims are novel and non-obvious, the PTAB still found no inventive concept.


As we shall show later, examiners now growingly reject software patents and PTAB almost always affirms their decision (to reject). It's an encouraging new trend. It's not entirely new, but it's gaining momentum.

It's worth noting that attacks on PTAB are running dry. We track these things pretty carefully and closely. All in all, the anti-PTAB lobbying sites have slowed down lately. These anti-PTAB tweets, personal attacks, blog posts and articles may have halved in number (compared to months ago). Watchtroll, which used to attack PTAB almost every day (sometimes more than once a day), has lots of totally off-topic stuff. Watchtroll was bashing PTAB using the recent Arendi case (that was two days ago), but those sorts of articles come out about twice a week now, not twice a day like they used to.

Anticipat, which was trying to sell products/services by badmouthing PTAB, is also changing its tone somewhat. It's softening.

Christopher Francis, writing for a law firm that loves bashing PTAB, is not happy about IPRs improving patent quality, but he too takes note of examiners' change of habit:

The Patent Trial & Appeal Board applied In Re: Smith Int’l to limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim language in Ex parte David Ben Yair (Appeal 2017-002190, decided Jan. 10, 2018). In this case, the claim is directed toward a composite suit including “an inner suit” and “an outer suit,” and the prior art discloses a single article of clothing including an outer layer and an inner layer. The PTAB agreed with the appellant that, based on the specification of the appealed application, the claims required two pieces of clothing. Based on this interpretation the PTAB reversed the prior art rejection.

[...]

This type of analysis by the PTAB begs the question of whether examiners are now required to identify support in the specification for their interpretation of claim terms. In any case, this decision is an example of a broad application of In re: Smith Int’l that could be useful when working with the examiners on BRI issues and when appealing based on an Examiner’s broad claim interpretation.


PTAB haters are still out there, ranting in ALL CAPS because PTAB cites €§ 101, but those are a lot more extreme than any of the above. They are connected to literal patent trolls. They are so 'fringe' that they even deny that professors are professors (when they do not agree with them). The trolls they are connected to deny that I have a Ph.D. and yet it's them who most habitually accuse PTAB of not caring about facts. The sheer hypocrisy.

Recent Techrights' Posts

Double-Dipping the Docket for Microsoft Glory and Censorship of Microsoft Critics
same lawyer, same barrister, all US, all Microsoft
IBM: Less Than a Month's Severance for Each Decade of Service
Yes, decade!
The EPO, Europe's Largest Patent Office, Admits Outsourcing to Microsoft Slop
Their sole goal is to make more money
 
Microsoft's "FUD-as-a-Service" (Against Linux) Not Functioning Well
This is the kind of contribution companies like Microsoft and Google have to offer to society
Betanews Becoming a Slopfarm is "Betanews Growing Alongside You", According to Betanews
Their first 'article' in over two weeks is 52% "AI-generated" (slop), 33% mixed (edited slop), 18% human-written, says an advanced scanner.
Coffee Day and LLM Sloppers
The LLM slop "bros" are a lot like fake-money bros; they lie to people, they boast that they lie to people, and they're generally bad people, BS artists in colloquial terms
TheLayoff Censorship of IBM Threads Has Gone Truly Ludicrous
we do not argue that TheLayoff should not cull LLM slop
More Stallmanites Added to FSF Board and Summer Fundraiser Commences
There's some good news from the FSF
Gemini Links 17/06/2025: Consistency and Notes About NixOS
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, June 16, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, June 16, 2025
July 2 2025 Would Not be First Big Wave of Microsoft Layoffs Before Major National Holiday
July 2 or 3 mark the start of a very long weekend in the US
IDG's NetworkWorld Seems to Have Just Become LLM Slop
If IDG (now controlled by China) does that in at least one site, why not the rest? Only a matter of time?
Gemini Links 16/06/2025: Free Lunches and Bookmarklet for Mastodon
Links for the day
Gemini Protocol Turns 6 on Friday
Active (online) Gemini capsules are estimated by Lupa at over 3,000
Taking a Lesson From Denmark and Greenland? Iceland Shows New Lows for Windows, All-Time Highs for GNU/Linux
If Microsoft sabotages systems of judges at the Hague (in order to appease the insane man who wanted to invade Greenland), why won't its neighbour Iceland take note?
BetaNews Has Just Deleted Its Latest 'Article' or Got Cracked Again and Restored From Outdated Backup Again
BetaNews seems to be in some serious trouble right now
Software Freedom is "Activism" Because the Corporate Agenda Revolves Around Bribery, Deceit, and Betrayal
At the end Software Freedom will win because it's on the same side as truth and lawfulness
Links 16/06/2025: EchoLeak and NASA Teaming up With India
Links for the day
The Better the Understanding or the More Nations Understand the Threat Posed by Microsoft, the Faster It'll be Eradicated
We believe that the thing to advocate is self-hosting and Free software... A lack of simplicity or absence of alternatives is a form of vendor lock-in
A Week of Sunlight
They say transparency is like sunlight to a vampire
"Linux" Sites That Went Astray
there are even worse things than shutdowns
Links 16/06/2025: Climate, Wildfires, Breaches, and Monopolies
Links for the day
Links 16/06/2025: Summer in Finland and Misunderstandings
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, June 15, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, June 15, 2025
Gemini Links 15/06/2025: Rainy Season and OpenDocument Format (ODF)
Links for the day
Links 15/06/2025: Military Games, Parade, and Actions
Links for the day
Links 15/06/2025: Windows TCO, Openwashing, and Wars
Links for the day
Gemini Links 15/06/2025: "AI Fatigue and Crappiness"
Links for the day
When Abusive Law Firms (Working for Microsofters Against Us) Assert That Someone Writing in Social Media About Himself is Confidential Information
There was no reason to throw "GDPR" into 2 SLAPPs; they know it, but the goal was to increase the cost of a Defence and lessen the incentive to challenge the SLAPPs
Microsoft Attack Dogs Against Watchdogs and Guard Dogs in Software
Last year Microsofters hired attack dogs or "guns for hire"
Slop Cannot Replace Domain Expertise
All this "AI" hype (it's not even intelligence, it's all a misnomer, as many of us have insisted all along) will fizzle and be written off as a failed experiment
IBM's Fresh 'PIPs' (Action Before Layoffs)
At times like these, even once-reputable employers resort to PIPs and other procedures/tricks for denial of workers' rights
Microsoft is a Problem Not Just for Denmark
Every country should consider what Denmark is doing, why Denmark is doing it, and then do the same
The Slopfarms' Self Detonation
If more sites like BetaNews go under, then maybe we can still salvage some of the Web
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Saturday, June 14, 2025
IRC logs for Saturday, June 14, 2025