01.02.17
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Fraud, Patents at 8:56 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
More information to come out soon…
Summary: New trouble for Željko Topić in Strasbourg, making it yet another EPO Vice-President who is on shaky grounds and paving the way to managerial collapse/avalanche at the EPO
PRESIDENTIAL loyalists like Willy Minnoye (Vice-President of the European Patent Office), Ciaran McGinley and Lucy Neville-Rolfe are leaving and the Croatian gravy train (the 'Balkan Express') is close to crashing. We have received the following information from Croatia today. It looks plausible that one EPO Vice-President won’t just retire early but might actually end up behind bars like Ivo Josipović (former President of the Republic of Croatia). In the words of our source:
STRASBOURG – TWO CORRUPTION INDICTMENTS BROUGHT AGAINST ŽELJKO TOPIĆ
On 19 December 2016 the EU Court in Strasbourg received two indictments against Željko Topić, former Director General of the State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of the Republic of Croatia in Zagreb and currently the right hand of Benoit Battistelli at the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich. The indictments include a number of offences in support of corruption committed by Željko Topić as an accountable person during his DG office at the SIPO in Croatia. Namely, due to inefficiency of the Croatian justice and the political protection provided to Željko Topić in the Republic of Croatia, especially by the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia (DORH in Croatian) and the Office for the Suppression of Corruption and Organised Crime (USKOK in Croatian), after more than 8 years of investigation, a party to the proceedings made a decision to seek legal protection within the international frameworks at the EU Court in Strasbourg. At any rate, Croatia has not been declared one of the most corrupt countries in the world for no reason according to the latest Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International. The most tragic fact in the entire lengthy investigative proceedings in Croatia is that Željko Topić has never been called in for questioning by the police or the State Attorney’s Office. All this time Željko Topić has been receiving his pay from the EPO nonstop in the amount of EUR 18,000.- a month, and the parking space in the EPO car park in Munich has been adorned by his black Mercedes-Benz illegally appropriated from the SIPO in Zagreb, i.e. from the Republic of Croatia. The former President of the Republic of Croatia, Ivo Josipović, is listed as one of the potential political protectors of Mr. Topić. Using a possible criminal offence of influence peddling the former Croatian President has protected Željko Topić from criminal prosecution in investigative structures of the Republic of Croatia for a number of years for one reason only, which reason concerns the operation of the Croatian parafiscal musical association under the name of the Music Authors Rights Protection Office (ZAMP in Croatian). That is to say, by obstructing investigation and protecting Željko Topić the former Croatian President Ivo Josipović in fact has been protecting himself since there is a clear trail of corruption offences leading directly to him over the ZAMP and the SIPO. Moreover, the staffing of the SIPO of the Republic of Croatia is largely comprised of the ZAMP employees having disputable qualifications. The fear that Željko Topić might “squeal on him” during the investigation and the legal proceedings in fashion of the member of the Calabrian mafia has resulted in dropping of criminal charges against him, which in this particular case ended up in Strasbourg. The final act in this judicial play protecting the person and the action of corrupt Željko Topić was performed at the County Court in Zagreb and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia where the investigations against Topić were declared inadmissible. Therefore, and especially due to the unbearable stench of the judicial marshland, nobody in Croatia was surprised by the most recent statement given to the media by the new Minister of Interior saying that all judges of the Constitutional Court should hand in their resignations on account of corruption since they pose a direct threat to national security of the Republic of Croatia. In addition to the legal proceedings in Strasbourg, the party to the proceedings has also announced criminal prosecution against the leading persons in Croatian justice, and the DORH and the USKOK implicated in protection of Željko Topić. Those charges will also be brought in France, most probably at the Ministry of Justice in Albertville or Grenoble. Specifically, after Croatia joined the EU as a full Member State, the Croatian citizens also have a possibility to take criminal offences to courts beyond the Croatian borders. In conclusion, as learned off the record, there are at least 6 more criminal investigations carried out against Željko Topić in Croatia.
Yes, we already heard about those additional 6 criminal investigations against Željko Topić in Croatia. The man seems to be corrupt enough to match the job requirements of Battistelli and Bergot. And since he is so legally vulnerable they can probably better control him (e.g. by blackmail), too.
We shall post more information about the Strasbourg case in the coming days if not weeks.
The situation at the EPO is getting worse by the day. Published a few days ago by media in Luxembourg (looks like a French and German mix) was an article about the climate at the EPO. The purely automated translation (not edited) says:
The dispute between the President and the Suepo trade union, which represents the bulk of the 7,000-strong workforce, has been raging for more than five years. Minister Etienne Schneider is now responding to a parliamentary question by the LSAP deputies, Claudia Dall’Agnol.
The leadership style of President Benoît Battistelli, who took over this office in 2010, leads from escalation to escalation. Only recently did employees move through the streets of Munich and consulates. According to the statements of the trade unionists, Battistelli has for a long time sprawled the bow so far that the working climate is at its zero point. In the course of this year, three trade unionists from the Suepo were already set before the door. According to our information, the President has indicated very spurious causes of these cancellations, which are not to be attributed to the hair.
Full and accurate translation of the entire article will be appreciated. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.29.16
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 5:42 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
What a total waste of money!
Summary: The scope of patents in the United States is rapidly tightening (meaning, fewer patents are deemed acceptable by the courts) and Fitbit’s patent case is the latest case to bite the dust
EARLIER this year we learned that the USPTO might have to reassess design patents, having already reassessed software patents. SCOTUS was poised to look into an Apple v Samsung case (one of several high-profile cases), which later turned out alright for Samsung.
Days ago we found a new article titled “US Supreme Court Sets The Bar Higher For Obtaining Damages For Design Patent Infringement” in the media of patent lawyers. At the same time patent law firms said that we all need more patents that fall inside/within a broader scope (i.e. more money paid for their ‘services’) , this time too in relation to design patents. Another patent law firm spoke in favour of design patents because it makes money out of patent maximalism. Shouldn’t we just ignore them all, knowing that they object to SCOTUS not because SCOTUS is wrong but because of greed? They want design patents, like those which are often applicable to gadgets, but such patents are being phased out, or defanged in the damages sense. The incentive too pursue such patents has just decreased and confidence in existing ones eroded.
Certainty surrounding software and design patents is declining and in fact just two days ago, regarding the Fitbit case that we covered here before, there was a major new development. The seminal lawsuit got dropped:
Fitbit drops patent infringement case against rival wearable tech company Jawbone
Fitbit Inc. has dropped one of its patent infringement cases against rival wearable tech maker AliphCom Inc.’s Jawbone, pointing to its belief that the company is already failing financially, reported The Wall Street Journal.
The two San Francisco-based companies both manufacture and market wearable fitness trackers and have been tied up in litigation with each other, alleging patent infringement and the stealing of trade secrets. Patents in the litigation dropped by Fitbit were related to heart-rate and physical activity monitor technology.
Fitbit’s case would have blocked Jawbone’s ability to bring their competing product into the U.S., however it seems as if financial issues have already hampered the company’s ability to do business. Jawbone no longer lists its products for sale on its website.
Fitbit’s implicit message here is that it was going to win but was merciful enough because of the defendant’s position, but that’s quite likely just spin. The legal battle soon became a two-edged sword because Jawbone fought back and now it looks increasingly expensive for Fitbit to fight on, especially relying on patents that high courts tend to invalidate at the end.
What we are seeing here is part of the trend of litigation declines (as noted by several sources so far this year). Bad news for patent lawyers, but excellent news to everybody else. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.27.16
Posted in America, Courtroom, Deception, Patents at 2:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Selective emphasis on very few cases and neglect of various other dimensions help create a parallel reality (or so-called ‘fake news’) where software patents are on the rebound
“In 2014,” Joe Mullin recalls in a new article (published earlier today), “the US Supreme Court dealt a major blow to software patents. In their 9-0 ruling in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, the justices made it clear that just adding fancy-sounding computer language to otherwise ordinary aspects of business and technology isn’t enough to deserve a patent.”
“Since then,” he continues, “district court judges have invalidated hundreds of patents under Section 101 of the US patent laws, finding they’re nothing more than abstract ideas that didn’t deserve a patent in the first place. The great majority of software patents were unable to pass the basic test outlined by the Supreme Court. At the beginning of 2016, the nation’s top patent court had heard dozens of appeals on computer-related patents that were challenged under the Alice precedent. DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com was the only case in which a Federal Circuit panel ruled in favor of a software patent-holder. The Alice ruling certainly didn’t mean all software patents were dead on arrival—but it was unclear what a software patent would need to survive. Even DDR Holdings left a teeny-tiny target for patent owners to shoot at.”
“The patent law firms want us to believe that software patents are rebounding or something, even though CAFC invalidates them as quickly as ever, SCOTUS repeatedly rejects attempts to override Alice, and the number of lawsuits involving software patents sank considerably this past year, based on numerous comprehensive/exhaustive surveys.”Ignoring some of the biggest cases of 2016, Mullin then argues that “[j]udges on the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found three more cases in which they believe that software patents were wrongly invalidated. What once looked like a small exception to the rule now looks like three big ones.” What about that one single CAFC case involving not one but three invalidations, courtesy of the judge some hold responsible for software patents in the US? Here is a new article about it (bumped earlier today):
Intellectual Ventures recently filed for a rehearing en banc in Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp. and Trend Micro Inc. for a decision made in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that invalidated three of its software patents. The variety of patents at issue, colloquially dubbed the “Do-It-On-A-Computer” patent, have been increasingly invalidated after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.
The Intellectual Ventures loss (covered here many times at the time) isn’t the only such loss this year (for software patents at CAFC). We actually covered quite a few other such cases, but the patent microcosm prefers to obsess over just 3 or 4 cases, i.e. less than it takes one hand’s fingers to count. In our humble assessment, Mullin, who is an excellent journalist, fell prey/victim to the endless propaganda from the patent microcosm. The patent law firms want us to believe that software patents are rebounding or something, even though CAFC invalidates them as quickly as ever, SCOTUS repeatedly rejects attempts to override Alice, and the number of lawsuits involving software patents sank considerably this past year, based on numerous comprehensive/exhaustive surveys. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.19.16
Posted in America, Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 6:34 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Short roundup of news regarding patents in the United States and the process of handling them, with few comparisons to the EPO
LITIGATION with USPTO patents is down. It is down pretty sharply and this gives ample room for hope. But it does not, however, mean we should take our eyes off the ball.
Patently-O, writing in another recent post, said that “Medgraph’s claims are directed to a set of methods “for improving and facilitating diagnosis and treatment of patients.” See U.S. Patent 5,974,124 and U.S. Patent 6,122,351. The problem is that the claims require actions by both the computer system and also a patient/doctor. This claim structure directly runs headlong into traditional requirement for direct infringement of a patent – that all steps of the claim be performed-by or attributable-to a single entity.”
What’s noteworthy here is the presence of a computer system. We previously wrote about a similar case at the EPO appeal boards (computer conjoined with “medical” and “device” so as to make it look/sound non-abstract and novel). Right now in Europe it’s said to be easier to get (and defend) software patents than it is in the post-Alice US. The judge in the above case, P. Corcoran, thankfully rejected the application. No wonder Battistelli hates the appeal boards so much and strives to destroy them (while still maintaining the appearance or perception he complies with the EPC).
In other news from around the Web, there are formal/procedural changes emanating from CAFC decisions. “A recent decision from the Federal Circuit recognises a privilege between non-attorneys patent-agents and their clients under certain conditions,” says MIP. “Philippe Signore reviews the limits of this patent agent privilege, as well as those of the attorney-client privilege, within the context of the discovery phase of a US litigation,” continues the summary, but the article is behind a paywall.
“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6 has,” according to this from Patently-O, “since it first allowed for service by electronic means [legal papers served by E-mail, as the EPO attempted to do to me], treated it like other means of service, adding 3 days to the deadline to respond (under some circumstances). It’s now been deleted from the types of service that give the extra there days.”
Writing about a CAFC case, Patently-O also mentioned that “Patent Nos. 6,107,851 and 6,249,876 were not anticipated and were directly and indirectly infringed by Fairchild and that Fairchild’s Patent No. 7,259,972 was not obvious and was infringed by Power Integrations under the doctrine of equivalents (but was not literally infringed or indirectly infringed by Power Integrations). The jury also found Power Integrations’ Patent No. 7,834,605 neither anticipated nor obvious. Following trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law that Fairchild directly infringed this patent. The district court granted a permanent injunction against Fairchild and declined to grant an inunction against Power Integrations.”
The term injunction is just a nicer word for embargo and when companies start banning/blocking each other’s products it’s clear who’s not winning: the public. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
12.10.16
Posted in Courtroom, Patents at 3:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The history of personal attacks on Justices shows that such shameful resistance tactics are to be expected from the patent microcosm
Justice Breyer was pro-Alice or in favour of what’s now known as the Alice test that eliminates many software patents
Summary: In an important upcoming patent case, gross abuse of patent laws for the support of dubious business models can finally be tackled
As we noted here the other day, a big decision on patents is afoot. Great printer manufacturers heist (monopoly on toner/cartridges) can be stopped by the Supremes, but the implications go beyond just printing as global trade is at stake. The case of Lexmark affects every company that produces printers and also every company that tries to enforce its patents — so as to defend a notorious business model — abroad. A lot of articles have been written about this in recent days, e.g. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], and in the words of the National Law Journal, “Justice Stephen Breyer seemed persuaded on Tuesday that supplying a single component of a product for overseas assembly isn’t enough to trigger extraterritorial application of U.S. patent laws.”
Breyer has already come under attacks from the patent microcosm for his views on other domains of patenting and we defended him. In this case too, Breyer seems capable of recognising that patents need to justify themselves at a broader sense than just someone’s business model. We hope that Lexmark will lose this case. When you purchase a printer or a cartridge, than both should basically be treated as your properly and anything you do with them oughtn’t be artificially limited by patent law. This relates to a recent controversy — one which the EFF too got involved in — where HP basically artificially limited people’s printers (remotely even) given updates that induced a sort of physical DRM (machines or software refusing to take orders from their operator/owner, in spite of having the capacity to do so). █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.05.16
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 5:28 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“The file against me contains so many demonstrably fabricated accusations that I have little doubt I can defend myself – or, rather I would be able to if, our internal system were not what it is currently, a kangaroo court.”
–Laurent Prunier, EPO staff representative
Summary: The EPO’s kangaroo courts and farcical notion of justice should serve as a warning sign to anyone seeking patent justice at the EPO, either as partners/employees or stakeholders/applicants
THE EPO is a horrible, horrible place to work at. The staff survey speaks for itself and people who work for the EPO constantly remind us of the nature of the workplace, comparing it to being in the trenches.
The kangaroo courts of the EPO are some of the most jaw-dropping aspects of the EPO. Anyone can be accused of anything and so-called ‘evidence’ even fabricated or ‘sexed up’ in order to do whatever the egoistic President wants, making up for his insecurities and cluelessness by merely bullying people. We covered several examples of that over the past year. It’s not about one person. There are many victims and only few of them are courageous enough to go public.
President Battistelli believes he can be the accuser, the jury and a judge above the law (both national and international). He also acts a lot like an executioner, judging by the number of dismissal letters he sends out to people who represent staff (we might elaborate on this in some future series). Would EPO managers get away with murdering little girls because of the immunity they proudly claim inside Eponia? Read this new comment (posted today in relation to the EPO):
To: “Et sinon je reprendrais bien des croquettes”
When a drunken diplomat kills a little girl, immunity is upheld, but the diplomat is declared “persona non grata” and sent back to his or her country. The diplomat is then supposed to be judged there.
The Vienna convention was never designed so that diplomats can kill little girls with impunity. It was designed to protect, for example, USA diplomats to be judged for “anti-communist activities” in the former USSR.
In the case of International organisations, however, I am not really sure how the “persona non grata” concept is supposed to apply.
The above continues with more direct statements rather than hypothetical analogies:
Something else.
It has been 3 months since the Enlarged Board published that the EPO President violated judicial independence and nothing has happened. This is outrageous.
There is also the subject of the frivolity of the accusations. The board of appeal member who is the subject of the decision did, as far as I can tell from the available documents, nothing wrong. The accusations were downright ridiculous: having “objects which can be constructed as weapons” and “nazi memorabilia”. The exact wording at the time fails me, but it really sounded as if they combed his office and found nothing but a pocket knife and an history book to frame him.
This is also absolutely outrageous. It looks like the so called “investigation team”, even with major breaches of confidentiality (they bugged the computers used by the Council themselves, remember?) could not find anything serious and yet the board member is still guilty. Of what?
Next, we have had members of Suepo dismissed for, apparently, also nothing. Pure “coincidence”, according to a vice-president. Apparently, a few more will be dismissed soon.
As it was said on German TV: this is “Gantanamo auf Deutschem Boden”. How long will this scandal last?
From what we understand, it was sports equipment (a club), not a knife. It’s amazing how far Battistelli would go to get his way… we can also envision Parallel Construction being used to entrap or perhaps wrongly/falsely accuse the person, who in principle enjoys complete independence from the Office of Battistelli (evidently not in practice, especially when the Council and the Board of Mr. Kongstad become lapdogs rather than watchdogs of Battistelli).
The comment above is interesting and it is new. It’s a comment to which one person replied with a famous saying: “For evil to prevail it is only necessary that good men do nothing …”
I agree. There is a moral duty here. All my coverage regarding the EPO was done for zero financial gain. It’s just the right thing to do.
Another person said this:
The original accusation was that the member of the board of appeal used the public computers of the Office to spread “defamatory” material on VP3 – the weapons and nazi memorabilia were conveniently found later in his office and used for a classical case of character assassination.
To further reinforce the narrative about defamation, VP3 sued the member of the board of appeal for in a German court – you may have read the outcome above (28/09): it appears that the Procurator dismissed the case recently.
How long will this scandal last?
Scandal? Who says this is a “scandal” – you? And what about Newspapers, Lawyers, Judges, the IP world? Did you see any reaction from them? Because I didn’t. Therefore, it’s not a scandal. The Administrative Council is acting like this is totally normal. No scandal here.
If you wanna a scandal read TMZ.
The corporate media — and even so-called ‘IP’ media for that matter (we put IP in scare quotes because it’s a vague term that can refer to a plethora of entirely different things, not necessarily patents) — aids the EPO’s abuses by a conspiracy of silence and indifference. We spoke to some people from within this media and we know how and why they are gagged regarding the EPO. We think that a lot of so-called ‘IP’ media wants to just receive prepared ‘articles’ or advertise in ‘article’ form for the EPO, not engage in actual journalism. We recently covered examples from two major 'IP' media sites. Don’t expect them to cover the EPO scandals because they’re not designed or equipped for that. It’s just not their business model.
“Something is not just rotten at Eponia. Rotten is far too gentle a term and we intend to dig as deep as necessary to show what the EPO has truly become.”“Isn’t that just the point,” asked another new commenter (clustered deep inside an article from June at IP Kat, as the site no longer covers the scandals, just promotes the UPC for Battistelli). “The EPO’s immunity is designed to protect French Enarques from being pursued for “anti-union activities” on the territory of EPOnia. I see no incompatibility with the aims of the Vienna Convention …”
Tomorrow we shall continues our series about Mr. Kongstad. There will be a total of (by our estimation) nearly 10 parts.
Something is not just rotten at Eponia. Rotten is far too gentle a term and we intend to dig as deep as necessary to show what the EPO has truly become. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
10.02.16
Posted in Courtroom, Europe, Patents at 7:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The Organisation should be prepared for criticism over its role in this embarrassment of Europe
Reference: Impunity
Summary: Impunity at the EPO, a subject of growing fury inside and outside the EPO, is revisited in light of the expectation that Dutch courts won’t hold the EPO accountable, and Board 28 quit caring about the crisis which it itself had admitted
THE EPO is a politically-connected or politically-infiltrated institution. No wonder it’s so abusive. We are going to provide evidence of it in the coming week. The politician/President Battistelli has a 0% approval rating at the EPO, much like politicians (they too have low degrees of public trust). The Board (28) and the Council, who are complicit and largely supportive of Battistelli, are also politically-connected and despite admitting there is "a crisis" at the EPO they do nothing to address it. The Board (28), for example, shows no intent to kick Benoît Battistelli out any time soon. Combine all this with immunity from the outside and what we have is a rogue entity totally above the law, including international law. See our prior (first) post about it. It’s unthinkable that such a thing can be tolerated in the so-called ‘developed’ world.
It does not look like SUEPO is likely to resolve the issue on its own. Here’s a recent new comment (correcting an error):
Obviously, it should have been “and a decision in favour of SUEPO in January look improbable.”
Sorry for that.
This was said in relation to the Dutch “AG [who] forgets that the immunity of the EPO is not absolute according to the PPI,” to quote this other new comment:
Well, IMHO the AG forgets that the immunity of the EPO is not absolute according to the PPI.
It is limited to “within the scope of its official activities” (Art 3 PPI).
Seeing the the EPO is continuoisly violating the PPI (by refusing any negotiations under Art. 20(2)PPI), where does the “scope” of official duties end?
Art 3(4) gives a hint:
(4)
The official activities of the Organisation shall, for the purposes of this Protocol, be such as are strictly necessary for its administrative and technical operation, as set out in the Convention.
Anything outside of the convention is not falling under immunities… And anything in implementing regulations, or other secondary law, is too easily amended, and can therefore not be protected by the claimed immunity grom everything.
There larger issue working against SUEPO is the requirement of the Office not being allowed to be put under restraints in one site, but not in the others. And the Dutch courts jurisdiction does not extend to Munich and Berlin and Bruxelles and Vienna……
Immunity might not be given, but a decision against the EPO may be refused under this requirement.
There is another new comment on the current situation and it makes it clear that people are very much disturbed by the situation at the EPO. We also saw some reactions — some of them quite strongly worded — in sites like Twitter. What the AG has said infuriates some EPO insiders. They’re almost at a loss for words, except very strong words.
We have spent some time researching the potential causes of the immunity of the Office and the Organisation. Some people looked into the family background of Battistelli and also the secret life of Kongstad. In the run-up to the next big meeting we are going to reveal to readers some of our findings. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
09.27.16
Posted in America, Courtroom, Patents at 10:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Interesting timing as the USPTO has just come under criticism from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for issuing far too many patents
Summary: A struggle brewing between the patent ‘industry’ (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
The Supreme Court in the US (SCOTUS) has contributed a lot to woes for patent lawyers and a relief to software developers. It is abundantly clear that Mayo and Alice are being taken quite seriously by lower courts, especially the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).
“In short, this is just self-serving USPTO propaganda, serving perhaps to distract from the recent GAO report which chastised the USPTO for patent maximalism.”It is not hard to see that patent lawyers are frightened and mortified by SCOTUS and CAFC, both of which have been limiting patent scope more so than district courts and the USPTO (trying to just maximise its own income rather than provide a service*). Design patents may be next to be axed by the US Supreme Court, as we noted earlier this year (in summertime) and various maximalists of patents speak about it, including Watchtroll [1, 2] (the Kool-Aid of patent law firms if not somewhat of a lobbying site).
“USPTO publishes new estimates of “IP-Intensive” industries, spin results,” according to KEI (very good Web site by the way). “We have seen same spin in Europe,” Benjamin Henrion wrote. To quote all the key points about this think tank-esque activity:
USPTO has just published its new estimates of “IP-intensive” jobs for the US economy. The report is titled: Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: 2016 Update, and is available as a PDF file here. USPTO press release here:
I took a quick look at the report, and below are some initial bullet points:
1. In the new USPTO study of “IP-intensive” jobs, 85 percent are included because of trademarks.
2. Just 14 percent of the “IP-intensive” jobs involve patents.
3. 20 percent of so called “IP-intensive” jobs involve copyright industries.
4. Just 2 percent of the “IP-intensive” jobs involving patents are in the pharmaceuticals sector.
5. According to USPTO, less than 1 percent of all “IP-intensive” jobs are in the pharmaceutical sector.
6. USPTO’s top three “IP-intensive” industries are:
Grocery stores: 2.6 million jobs
Computer systems design: 1.8 million jobs
Management consulting: 1.4 million jobs
7. According to USPTO, a “majority of patenting firms are in the services and wholesale sectors.”
8. According to USPTO, the “Sound recording Industries” only provide 23.5 thousand jobs which is 0.0008 of all “ip-intensive” jobs.
9 Almost none of USPTO’s copyright sector jobs benefit from long copyright terms.
In short, this is just self-serving USPTO propaganda, serving perhaps to distract from the recent GAO report which chastised the USPTO for patent maximalism. Our next post will look more closely at the software patents lobby. █
___
* This new blog post from a patent maximalist (and longtime proponent of software patents for Bristows) says that there is “presumption of validity under US patent law,” but patent validity for pre-Alice patents is a joke because USPTO approved almost every application and by some standards it's estimated that as much as 92% of applications eventually led to a grant. To quote the maximalist, writing about ChIPs Global Summit: “The panel also noted that the presumption of validity under US patent law assists the patentee in showing that they have something of real value and that the burden of proving that the patent is invalid falls on the other side. However, in reality if we took a poll, many would comment that there are a lot of weak patents out there. It was suggested that perhaps the focus therefore should be on patent quality so that the presumption of validity and the standard of evidence to rebut that presumption (clear and convincing) is actually appropriate. Just because a patent has survived one patent challenge does not mean that the patent is necessarily stronger. If the patent has survived a challenge in front of a really good judge, then the panel noted that that may deter opponents. However, in reality, that decision is not binding on anyone who is not party to that case. Those parties will try a different tactic before different judges in a different forum. This is of course correct – it is not fair to an absent party to be faced with the bias of a decision in a case they had no right to participate in. There cannot be a time bar for bringing a challenge to a patent in district court as potential litigants and controversy may not be in existence at the time of the first action.”
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA