The litigation 'industry' just wants lots and lots of lawsuits

Summary: A sample of news from yesterday; the patent microcosm is still arguing about who pays attorneys’ fees (not whether these fees are justified) and is constantly complaining about the decline in patent litigation, which means fewer and lower attorneys’ fees (less work for them)

AUGUST is a relatively quiet (likely quietest of the year) month for the EPO and USPTO, so we don't expect to hear many announcements and news. Nevertheless, yesterday IAM published this promotional piece about NantKwest, Inc v Matal, which goes a whole fortnight back. Here's what it said:

On 27 July 2018 the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals en banc rejected the USPTO’s attempt to obtain attorneys’ fees after patent applicants appealed the rejection of an application in a de novo civil action. It reversed the earlier decision of a three-judge panel in NantKwest, Inc v Matal and expressly rejected the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ reasoning for allowing the USPTO to obtain attorneys’ fees for appeals against trademark denials.

"USPTO is once again contemplating the possibility of reviving a proposal that envisions all patent practitioners paying annual patent bar dues," Watchtroll wrote. It's all about money.

"To Roebuck it’s all about money; there’s no other reasons for these people to promote software patents, which are generally loathed by software developers."Over at Watchtroll, Arista's loss is belatedly noted and G. Michael Roebuck promotes software patents, as usual. "This article presents a two-step approach to responding to software patent-ineligible subject matter rejections under 35 USC 101," he wrote yesterday, "and drafting patent-eligible subject matter software patent applications having claims to an “improvement in computer functionality”. The first example describes the approach for responding to 101 rejections. The second example describes the approach for drafting patent-eligible subject matter software patent applications."

To Roebuck it's all about money; there's no other reasons for these people to promote software patents, which are generally loathed by software developers.

Another site of patent maximalists wrote about the collapse of patent lawsuits. Law firms generally panic as patent lawsuits collapse (that seems like a suitable word), i.e. fewer patents are expected to be respected by courts (low legal certainty). To quote what's outside the paywall:

US patent case filing was down in the first half of 2018. We examine the number of cases, types of defendants and Federal Circuit decisions affecting filing trends

Many Federal Circuit cases are now coming from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), namely inter partes reviews (IPRs) being appealed.

All the above (from yesterday) is that same old phony agenda, which puts litigation and patenting before science and technology. These people know very well what they're trying to achieve; and that certainly ain't innovation but litigation. The more, the merrier. ⬆