Bonum Certa Men Certa

Rebellion Against Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) Comes From Patent Extremists, Demonstrating PTAB's Success

This past week's PTAB roundup

Police at protest



Summary: Considering where the backlash against PTAB keeps coming from, PTAB should be overwhelmingly pleased and rest assured that scientists and technologists are on its side

THE BIG QUESTIONS regarding abstract/software patents were all answered a very long time ago (over 4 years) by SCOTUS. Well, software patents are in general not suitable for enforcement; those that had been granted could barely be enforced successfully after Alice. Few even bother trying anymore. It's too risky and far too expensive in case of failure. It's a dangerous gamble.

"...software patents are in general not suitable for enforcement; those that had been granted could barely be enforced successfully after Alice."Banner & Witcoff's Charles W. Shifley, i.e. the patent microcosm, has this interesting new article. USPTO officials, who didn't care about patent quality, belatedly realise that the image of patents is nowadays being eroded and has become negative, so they try to create a "new narrative" rather than improve patent quality. To quote Shifley:

These days, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has a new Director, and reflecting only on the recent “bad,” he calls for a “new narrative” about patents, one that emphasizes their benefit to society. 1 Is a new “new narrative” possible, at this time, and for the foreseeable future? One in which patents are good?

[...]

So back to the introduction. With a whipsawing through bad-to-good and good-tobad again, and with a new PTO Director calling for a “new narrative” about patents, is a new “new narrative” possible? Can there be a new “morning in America” for patents?

Of course, only time will tell. But consider what caused the earlier change from bad-to-good. First, bad led to the adoption of new law, the law that created the Federal Circuit, and the law it created of due care for patent rights. Fast-forward, in the period since the rise of patent enforcement entities, there has certainly been new law. The prime example is the America Invents Act (AIA), with its creation of inter partes reviews (IPRs), and similar postgrant proceedings, to reconsider issued patents. The AIA and IPRs passed a major test in recent months, surviving a constitutional challenge in the Oil States case.


If they worry so much about perception/image of patents being tarnished, then they need to ask themselves what critics are really saying; they usually don't oppose patents as a concept but bemoan just how far patents have gone. Patent maximalism is the problem; there's an analogous issue surrounding copyright law (many aspects of it, e.g. term lengths, Fair Use).

"Patent maximalism is the problem; there's an analogous issue surrounding copyright law (many aspects of it, e.g. term lengths, Fair Use)."The America Invents Act (AIA) has actually been part of the solution; most critics of the old status quo are generally supportive of AIA and pertinent items like PTAB, IPRs etc. It's not hard to see who opposes these; it's almost always the patent maximalists; here's one of them stating that: "So far in July, the PTAB has issued 20 decisions involving claim rejections based on 101/Alice ineligibility. Only 1 decision reversed the examiner."

He also said that "[t]he PTAB quietly hit a milestone in June in reversing Alice Section 101 rejections," linking to the latest from a PTAB bashing site called Anticipat (been quiet for a very long time).

They're just 'pulling a Berkheimer' again:

As we have pointed out in a previous post, for more than a year, reversal rates for abstract idea (Alice) rejections have been extremely low. We are finally seeing an uptick of reversals likely due to Berkheimer and other Federal Circuit case law and recent guidance by the USPTO. As we’ve previously predicted, this reversal rate should continue (and may even go up). But until leadership at the USPTO clarifies its policies, it remains to be seen by how much.

As we’ve previously reported, from August 2016 to April 2017, the PTAB had months where it reversed abstract ideas in the 20 and 30 percentage range. That is, if a month had 100 abstract idea decisions, the Board would reverse the examiner on 20 or 30 of those cases. But May 2017 saw a dismal change in appellant fortunes: the reversal rate for abstract idea rejections tanked. For this period of over a year ago, many months saw only single digit reversal rates. Indeed, no month during this time exceeded a 15% reversal rate. The period was bad for Alice appellants.


We responded to this last weekend in a couple of posts. Basically, Berkheimer has had no considerable impact, but patent maximalists are trying to entice customers by alleging that it has. It is no magic wand and no effective tricks have been pulled out of a hat. It's almost pure fiction, but these people believe that if they keep saying Berkheimer people will nod (without even knowing the case). We call it 'pulling a Berkheimer'; sometimes the lawyers call it "Berkheimer Effect' (capitalised even), similar to "Alicestorm" and other catchphrases they make up.

"We call it 'pulling a Berkheimer'; sometimes the lawyers call it "Berkheimer Effect' (capitalised even), similar to "Alicestorm" and other catchphrases they make up."Anyway, previous tricks for bypassing Section 101 have fallen on deaf ears in the courts. Some have even attempted to avoid the courts altogether, asserting that they're basically immune from the law. PTAB didn't fall for that trick and neither did judges above PTAB. Native American status does not imply corporations can piggyback that status and it's unlikely that SCOTUS would see it differently if it even bothers dealing with an appeal (which is also unlikely because the Federal Circuit was pretty firm and unambiguous). Here's one more article we've missed, a report from Cyrus Farivar which a reader forwarded to us a few days ago. Let it sink in:

In a unanimous decision, an appellate court has resoundingly rejected the legal claim that sovereign immunity, as argued by a Native American tribe, can act as a shield for a patent review process. On July 20, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in a 3-0 decision that the inter partes review (IPR) process is closer to an "agency enforcement action"—like a complaint brought by the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Communications Commission—than a regular lawsuit.

IPR is a process that allows anyone to challenge a patent’s validity at the United States Patent and Trademark Office—it was used famously in 2017 to reject the "podcasting patent."

"This win is a victory in our ongoing efforts to stop patent abuses by brand companies and to help drive access to more affordable medicine," Mylan CEO Heather Bresch said in a statement on July 20.


A Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) would be good for the customers too; lower prices, better access to medicine etc.

"An Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review (IPR) would be good for the customers too; lower prices, better access to medicine etc."Well done, PTAB.

"The PTAB recently clarified eligibility for a covered business method review (CBM)," wrote Jones Day's Matthew W. Johnson a few days ago, shedding some light on business methods (although CBM is part of AIA and isn't quite the same thing), which are intrinsically similar to software patents. To quote:

See Xerox Corp. v. Bytemark, Inc., No. CBM2018-00011 (P.T.A.B. July 12, 2018) (Paper 12). To establish standing for CBM review, a petitioner must show that the patent in question is a CBM patent. 37 C.F.R. €§ 42.304. CBM patents “claim[] a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service . . . .” Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, €§ 18(d)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 329-31 (2011).

In Xerox Corp., the Petitioners requested CBM review of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,967 (’967 patent), which claims a system that allows human ticket-takers to verify already-purchased electronic tickets without having to use a barcode scanner. See No. CBM2018-00011, Paper 12 at 2, 4. Petitioners argued that the ’967 patent is a CBM patent because (1) the utilization and validation of a purchased ticket constitutes a “financial product or service,” and (2) the claimed activities “associated with” the purchased ticket are financial activities. Id. at 9. The Patent Owner responded that the ’967 patent is not a CBM patent because its claims only cover “post-sale” activity. Id.


These are almost definitely abstract patents; The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) enables PTAB to squash these. PTAB is awesome and it typically gets things right. More software patents have just been squashed, as reported just before the weekend by Law 360. Here are the details (it's about CBM):

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Wednesday invalidated two patents covering digital management systems that were challenged by Dish Network, saying the claims in both patents were directed to the abstract idea of delivering certain data to users.

The PTAB ruled in separate America Invents Act covered business method reviews that Customedia Technologies LLC’s patents were invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice ruling, concluding that U.S. Patent Numbers 7,840,437 and 9,053,494 B2 were directed to nothing more than the abstract ideas of delivering “rented...


Dish Network (stylised as "DISH Network" or shorthanded "DISH") is actually making stuff; Alice came to its rescue. Customedia Technologies, the plaintiff, is nothing but a pile of patents and lawsuits, based on our quick research. This means that PTAB helps technology here; that's more of the usual.

"Customedia Technologies, the plaintiff, is nothing but a pile of patents and lawsuits, based on our quick research."Patent lawyers and attorneys aren't happy about any of this. That's expected. To them, PTAB is "death squads" (their analogies really go that far). This whole "death" narrative is being perpetuated every day, giving people the impression that PTAB is "killing". Here's a new example: "US Pat 9053494, System for data management and on-demand rental and purchase of digital data products; Killed w/Alice in CBM..."

Killed? Invalidated, not "killed". But whatever...

Writing about Ex parte Galloway, Donald Zuhn (Patent Docs) wrote:

In a decision issued in May, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reversed the final rejection of claims 35-48 in U.S. Application No. 13/512,585. The claims at issue had been rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. €§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7,056,690 ("Laskey") in view of Pajor et al., International Society for Analytical, Cytometry Part A. (2008) ("Pajor"), and Stoeber et al., J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 94(14): 1071-79 (2002) ("Stoeber"), and under 35 U.S.C. €§ 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

[...]

The Board concluded that the Examiner failed to provide evidence to support a prima facie case of patent ineligible subject matter, citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018), for the proposition that "[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination." In particular, the Board noted that "the Examiner did not establish with factual evidence, that the cell counting step, as claimed, is conventional or known in the art." The Board therefore reversed the Examiner's rejection of the claims at issue under €§ 101.


Just 'pulling a Berkheimer' again; this concerns €§ 101, which is often utilised when software patents are asserted outside or inside the court (threats of litigation, a lawsuit at the district courts, or an expensive appeal to the Federal Circuit).

"This whole "death" narrative is being perpetuated every day, giving people the impression that PTAB is "killing"."The Patent Docs contributor Michael Borella then weighed in on Ex Parte Jung, which is being labeled informative (like precedence more or less) by the USPTO. It's about a patent describing a "scene to be played back from the media server in response to the request," i.e. another nonsensical abstract patent. To quote:

In it, the PTAB clarifies how a certain commonly-used claiming technique could be construed as either in the conjunctive or disjunctive depending on the disclosure of the specification. While this interpretation is not new and dates back to a 2004 Federal Circuit opinion, many practitioners still use similar language in claims with the intent for these claims to be interpreted in the disjunctive only. Therefore, it is worth revisiting this case.

[...]

...specification resulted in a conclusion that while both a conjunctive and disjunctive interpretation was supported therein, there was no "clear definition or disavowal which would compel a disjunctive construction."

Regarding the second instance of "at least one" in the claim, the PTAB found support for a disjunctive interpretation. But, it stated that "neither the claims nor the remainder of the Specification ever suggest that a connection branch and a contents connection list must be mutually exclusive . . . [t]hus, nothing compels interpreting 'and' to mean 'or' contrary to its ordinary meaning."

Therefore, both instances of "at least one" were properly construed as conjunctive. As a result, the PTAB reversed the Examiner's obviousness rejections, as the PTAB's claim construction was sufficiently narrower than that of the Examiner to avoid reading on the cited references. The irony here, however, is that the narrower construction of "at least one of a connection branch and a contents connection list" was not adequately supported by the specification. Consequently, the claims were rejected under 35 U.S.C. €§ 112, first paragraph for lack of written description.

The practice tip here is that a claim term in the form of "at least one of A and B" will be interpreted in the conjunctive unless the Applicant clearly requires a disjunctive interpretation. Nonetheless, numerous practitioners are unaware of SuperGuide and still expect such a term to mean "A or B." A safe bet for those who wish to claim in the conjunctive or disjunctive is to use "A and B" or "A or B", respectively. With appropriate support in the specification, of course.


This "obviousness" case serves to show that PTAB is pretty strict -- something which Patent Docs (and the likes of it) can barely tolerate, nor can patent extremists like Mr. Gross, who is again ranting about Section 101:

#patent stakeholders: PTAB message is clear - if there is any way you can posit your claims as relating to GUI improvement, your chances of beating bogus 101 test are vastly improved: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017003187-06-25-2018-1 …


Managing IP's Michael Loney is now acting as his (Mr. Gross) megaphone in their fight against patent quality. They are nitpicking decisions and quotes (even from dissent) to suit their warped agenda.

Mr. Loney seems to really like perpetuating these talking points of patent maximalists; RPX being one of their latest. As Mr. Gross put it the other day:

As expected, Unified Patents is panicking about repercussions of Internet Time v. RPX case by CAFC to their patent blackmail IPR threat model!, their FAQs are modified to try and paper their way into safe harbor; before and after website versions attached to show dramatic changes pic.twitter.com/huOlngXDym


"14 of the 22 patent suits filed Monday were filed by patent trolls," said this tweet last week, "according to RPX Corp. That's 64%."

"They are nitpicking decisions and quotes (even from dissent) to suit their warped agenda."RPX is dying a slow death; it profits from an abundance of patent trolls and as PTAB halts much of their activity the necessity for RPX membership isn't quite there anymore.

In a perfect world, patent trolls would simply go extinct. In order for that to happen patent quality would need to be improved and scrutiny of patents made cheaper (more accessible). This is why PTAB is so important. This is why it has passionate enemies among patent maximalists. They rely on low-quality patents/examination -- a prerequisite to explosion in grants and litigation those grants can entail.

Recent Techrights' Posts

EPO Staff Can Go Listen to Richard Stallman Next Week in Munich (Technical University of Munich, Rudolf-Diesel Hörsaal (MW2001) on Campus Garching at 18:00)
"The talk is open to the public and attendance is free. Registration is not required."
At IBM, Relocation Means Layoffs (Downsizing)
Silent or 'invisible' layoffs?
Dystopian Trends in Technology Make Richard Stallman More Relevant Than Ever
It's good to see him attracting vast audiences
Richard Stallman (RMS) Announced His Talk Less Than 24 Hours Before It Took Place and Still Filled Up the Auditorium at Sapienza Università di Roma
Photos from yesterday evening [...] It looks like it was a very successful event
 
The European Patent Office (EPO), the Second-Largest Institution in Europe, is Cracking Down on Recreational Activities
Without AMICALE activities, and as staff already says it's pressured to work more for less, how can the EPO recruit bright people?
Transparency: FSFE financial reports exclude speaker fees and expenses
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Many Developers Have Many Political Views, They'll Never Agree on Everything
It's an effort to divide and destroy, not build
Gemini Links 14/10/2025: An Opportunity to Consider GNU/Linux and Another Simple IRC Client
Links for the day
Slopwatch: UbuntuPIT, LinuxSecurity, Google News, and the Serial Slopper Brian Fagioli
Nothing of merit here, just more slop
Links 14/10/2025: Lack of Trust in Slop and "Retirement Challenges"
Links for the day
Rhonda D'Vine, Gerfried Fuchs, Pronouns & Debian pregnancy cluster
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Central Staff Committee of the European Patent Office (EPO) Warns That EPO Management is Robbing or Manipulating Pension Funds Again
Faking "growth" is just about as bad as forgery
Probably a Lot Worse Than LLM Slop: GNOME Tying Itself to Divisive Politics, Even Where It's Clearly Not Relevant
Something has gone terribly wrong in GNOME
Links 14/10/2025: Microsoft OneDrive Scanning Faces in Photos (Without Asking First), "OpenAI Says It Will Move to Allow Smut"
Links for the day
They Generally Don't Like Scholars, as They're Less Compelled or Pressured to Repeat What Corporations and Oligarchs Say
People who loathe scholars have an agenda in mind that, unlike that of reasonable people, revolves around controlling people
Belated New Article About Last Thursday's Lecture by Richard Stallman in Helsinki, Finland
there are good reasons to pay with cash, not limited to privacy
Attacking Richard Stallman Has Become 'Career Suicide'
If you're going to viciously attack somebody, make sure your arguments are rock-solid
Microsoft's Failing XBox Business Has Turned Games Into Funerals
How does it feel to depend on Microsoft?
Yesterday's "Distinguished Lecture" by Richard Stallman Possibly Attended by Close to 1,000 People
The capacity of the place is about 900
Slop Poisons Everything
Imagine wanting to find what Torvalds has just said or what has just been released
Taking Software Freedom 'Mainstream'
interest in Software Freedom must have grown
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Monday, October 13, 2025
IRC logs for Monday, October 13, 2025
Gemini Links 14/10/2025: Ada Lovelace Day, Sony CLIE PEG-TG50 Review, Why to Avoid Network Solutions
Links for the day
The EPO's War on Techrights Was a Massive Mistake
The EPO started the SLAPPs after we had published a few hundreds of articles; we've since then published close to 6,000 because the attacks on us emboldened insiders to help us
General-Purpose Computers to Become Growing Area of Coverage
Without them, we have little left for controlling our lives
"They missed a great opportunity to shut up." -Jacques Chirac
Brett Wilson LLP has been trying to cheat the legal system many times
Harassment evidence: Switzerland, overcrowded fitness and yoga centers, incompetence and racism in accident response
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Vincent Danjean & Debian NXIVM collateral, blackmail risks
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
In Sweden This Past Friday Richard Stallman Explained Why Copyleft is Important
And he didn't have to 'bash' BSDs, either
IBM Layoffs Due to a Lack of Money and Company Debt Rising by Almost 10 Billion Dollars in 6 Months
IBM didn't buy Red Hat for any ideological reasons; it was a fast "cash grab" for revenue
Forbes Already Stopped Being a News Sites. Now It's a Spam and Propaganda Platform for "Paying Partners" (Companies).
news from Forbes became very scarce
Is the Second-Largest Institution in Europe (EPO) Gradually Becoming More Like a Sweatshop?
Underpaid, unqualified, inexperienced and incompatible people are already recruited to replace veteran examiners
The Register MS Has No FOSS Coverage Anymore
The Editor in Chief is like a Microsoft plant
Links 13/10/2025: "Toasty Subwoofer" and WiFi Speakers "Are About To Go Dumb"
Links for the day
Gemini Links 13/10/2025: iNaturalist and Tove Jansson’s Moominpappa at Sea
Links for the day
Microsoft Does Not Deny That Large Retailers Like Walmart, Costco and Target Are Giving Up on XBox (and Not Stocking It)
No doubt XBox is in trouble and rumours suggest that more mass layoffs are imminent
We'll Encourage Richard Stallman to Talk About Software Patents at the EPO Next Week When He Visits Munich (EPO Headquarters)
Go listen to Richard Stahlmann
Investigative Journalism Protects Society From Corruption, Crimes Against Women, Assaults on Civil Society
"what is the point of men doing military practice to defend a system that is so rotten?"
Swiss pimp usurping reputation of legendary Tissot boss Francois Thiébaud from France (BaselWorld, SWATCH Group SA)
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Paris 'Love Nest' & Debian Outreachy: from Lycée Lakanal to ENS Cachan, Cr@ns, nepotism
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Richard Stallman to Give Public Talk in 3 Hours, Then in the Technical University of Munich (Germany) Next Week
Richard Stallman at TUM on 21.10.2025 18:00, MW2001
Arnaud Parreaux lost case defending rogue employer
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Mathieu Elias Parreaux declared bankrupt in Switzerland
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Breakdown of the Rule of Law and Patent Law in the European Union (EU)
The EPO cannot recruit suitably qualified patent examiners this way, let alone retain them
Gemini Links 13/10/2025: Good Films, Wizard of Earthsea, Upgrading the Steam Controller's Stick
Links for the day
Leaks and Whistleblowers: Our Plan for Today
Society simply cannot advance when too many people self-censor
It's Not Justice When One Side Denies the Other Side the Ability to Even Speak
At this stage, Brett Wilson LLP is in my humble opinion acting in contempt of the Court
Links 13/10/2025: Australian Catholic University Uses Slop to Libel Students, Canada Threatens to Kill Beluga Whales
Links for the day
How Not to Silence Tux Machines (It'll Only Backfire, Badly)
defending Microsoft while attacking this site
Slopwatch: UbuntuPIT and Google News
It seems abundantly clear that Google News and Google in general participates in the slop epidemic
Vincent Danjean (not INTERPOL), Claire Bardel & Debian pregnancy cluster
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Christmas lynchings: Martin Krafft (madduck), Penny Leach (mjollnir) & Debian pregnancy cluster
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock
Gemini Links 13/10/2025: Birthdays and "Committee Unable to Contact Nobel Prize Winner"
Links for the day
Over at Tux Machines...
GNU/Linux news for the past day
IRC Proceedings: Sunday, October 12, 2025
IRC logs for Sunday, October 12, 2025