Latching onto cases like Berkheimer when it suits them, otherwise ridiculing judges and urging them to step down

Reference: "Why court-bashing is out of control."

Summary: Judgmental patent maximalists are still respecting high courts only when it suits them; whenever the outcome is not desirable they're willing to attack the legitimacy of the courts and the competence of judges, even resorting to racist ad hominem attacks if necessary

LAST year the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) almost always rejected software patents that had been granted by the USPTO. Those granted patents were bogus. They should never have been granted in the first place.

"No matter the number of debunkings, they'll continues to 'namedrop' these cases and attempt to give an impression that software patents are still worth pursuing. They're not."Earlier this year there were a few CAFC decisions (such as Berkheimer [1, 2] and others) that were intentionally warped and wrongly interpreted as resurgence of software patents. We already wrote more than a dozen rebuttals to these and would spare ourselves the need to do so again. Unfortunately, sites like Watchtroll continue to push these lies/misinterpretations; they also act like a 'proper' lobby group with headlines like "Law Professors Urge CAFC to Uphold Cleveland Clinic Diagnostic Method Patents".

Knobbe Martens' Jeremy Anapol also wrote about CAFC the other day, recalling these misinterpreted case:

The first case was Berkheimer v. HP Inc. and the second was Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software.

No matter the number of debunkings, they'll continues to 'namedrop' these cases and attempt to give an impression that software patents are still worth pursuing. They're not. 35 U.S.C. ۤ 101 is pretty clear about that.

"We have already seen judges from CAFC coming under attacks by the likes of Watchtroll and Crouch."Regarding 35 U.S.C. ۤ 112, this "Guest Post" by Gary M. Fox from the University of Michigan Law School deals with CAFC. It was hosted by Dennis Crouch, who himself also wrote about ۤ 112 (a short time apart) in relation to Capital Security Systems, Inc. v NCR Corp.

We have already seen judges from CAFC coming under attacks by the likes of Watchtroll and Crouch. They're not happy with the more restrictive approach towards patents. A few days ago Managing IP gave a platform to a patent maximalist who called it "CAFC's evolving approach on patent eligibility," saying that he "[d]escribes court's approach now as a "touch and feel analysis". Does something feel new?"

No, nothing new here. Patent zealots who make a living out of patents just carry on bashing not only PTAB but also 'proper' courts like CAFC, which support PTAB the vast majority of the time. ⬆