09.19.16

Patents Roundup: Disclosure Requirements, Mobile Patents, Patent Lawyers’ Plagiarism, USPTO Getting Sued, and Corporate Domination of the Patent System

Posted in America, Apple, Asia, Europe, Microsoft, Patents at 4:40 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Called “patent sharks”, they bought dormant agricultural patents and then sued farmers who were unknowingly using protected technology. This brass knuckles tactic outraged rural activists and led to the same calls for sweeping patent reform that we hear now.” —Gerard N. Magliocca, Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation

Summary: The unwanted elements of the patent system (as it stands at present) illuminated by very recent news and patent court cases

WE sometimes worry that our growing focus on the EPO has distracted somewhat from the patent quality problems at the USPTO. We spend an enormous amount of time looking into patent news from all around the world and occasionally something catches our eye that needs a quick comment but not a comprehensive rebuttal. Herein we lay out some recent patent news, with or without further comment.

Disclosure Requirements

“Patents cannot be used defensively, only as means of retaliation (M.A.D.) so that both sides suffer and only lawyers win (they profit from patent wars irrespective of the outcome).”When it comes to patents, rules vary wildly depending on the country. Here we have Switzerland-based site praising its own country on patents, but it’s only part of the story because for a rich country to have a lot of patents makes a lot of fiscal sense, for reasons we explained last month. The Swiss patent system and the role of Switzerland in the EPO requires taking into account Switzerland’s rather unique economy.

Mobile Patents

According to the patents-centric media, Judge Koh, probably best known in recent years for her involvement in Apple and Samsung trials, is still going strong. “The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted 13-7 to approve the nomination of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to the Ninth Circuit,” says this report.

One article, this one coming from a niche Web site, wrongly assumes that ‘app’ (buzzword, usually meaning software for mobile devices) development requires patents. If you develop a mobile ‘app’ and waste time/effort worrying about patents on software, then you’re probably doing it wrong and wasting resources. Patents cannot be used defensively, only as means of retaliation (M.A.D.) so that both sides suffer and only lawyers win (they profit from patent wars irrespective of the outcome). Deterrence using patents does not exist when trolls are involved.

“Microsoft had extorted HTC using patents as well; HTC chose to settle to avoid legal action and potential embargoes.”“Apple Was Hit with a $22M Verdict for Infringing an Acacia Patent,” wrote a patent attorney the other day. Acacia is a Microsoft-connected patent troll. As for Apple, when it sued HTC 6 years ago it showed that it too was quite a patent bully. “According to the complaint,” says another new report, HTC is being sued again and “the plaintiff [Infogation] alleges that Infogation Corp. suffered damages to its business from having its patent infringed. The plaintiff holds HTC Corp. and HTC America Inc. responsible because the defendants allegedly manufacture and distribute mobile phones containing software that infringes the plaintiff’s patents.”

They just can’t leave HTC alone, can they? Microsoft had extorted HTC using patents as well; HTC chose to settle to avoid legal action and potential embargoes. Speaking of embargoes (or injunctions), another example of the ITC being exploited for embargoes (using patent allegations before even a proper trial) can be seen in this new press release. So much for promoting innovation, eh? Promoting racketeering maybe… Microsoft has used the ITC for embargoes using patents for nearly a decade now.

“What’s a Patent Worth?”

“Patents are a lot like financial bubbles and are also an instrument of tax evasion some of the time.”That’s the headline of this article which says: “When a technology business fails, and the flesh of the going concern is stripped away, often the only thing that remains is a paper skeleton of potentially valuable patents. In 2011, Nortel Networks’ patent portfolio of wireless technology patents sold for $4.5 billion. A few years later in 2013, Kodak’s portfolio of digital imaging patents brought in $525 million. Now, Yahoo’s patent portfolio of nearly 3,000 patents is on the block, and experts estimate that it could sell for $1 billion. While “expert” valuations are not always accurate, (Nortel’s portfolio was initially valued at $1 billion, and Kodak’s portfolio was initially valued at $2.2-2.6 million; see http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/the-lowballing-of-kodaks-patent-portfolio) the estimates for Yahoo’s portfolio work out to more than $300,000 per patent, well in excess of the cost of acquisition.”

As we explained before, Yahoo’s patents are mostly software patents, thus they’re pretty worthless right now (after Alice).

Patents are a lot like financial bubbles and are also an instrument of tax evasion some of the time.

Hartig Drug Co. v Senju Pharmaceutical Co.

“Microsoft does this a lot to vendors that sell GNU/Linux, Chrome OS, and Android devices. It’s a form of extortion, depending on how it’s done and how severe the threats are, quality of patents (if disclosed) aside.”A patent maximalism site said about a fortnight ago: “Perhaps one of the most influential first year law school classes for the task of learning how to “think like a lawyer” is civil procedure. Particularly when the professor is bold enough to engage students on the intricacies of the topic, its intricacies can make for a challenging final exam. These experiences should come to mind for many antitrust lawyers when considering the Third Circuit’s decision in Hartig Drug Co. v. Senju Pharmaceutical Co., where the Court applied subject matter jurisdiction principles to reverse a District Court’s dismissal of Hartig’s antitrust allegations on the pleadings.”

Notice the antitrust element of it. It’s quite common when it comes to patent monopolies.

Asetek v AVC

“Patent lawyers say we need to respect patents, but they sure don’t respect copyrights some of the time.”This recent coverage of a case involving patents on cooling systems is also noteworthy. To quote: “The Asetek patents cover liquid cooling systems used to cool integrated circuits (such as those on a computer). Over the past several years, Asetek has sued several competitors for infringing the patents including CoolIT and Cooler Master. In 2014, Asetek sent AVC a letter accusing the company of infringing — however the letter mistakenly accuesd AVC of manufacturing the Liqmax 120s (it does not). After some letters back-and-forth, Asetek eventually sent a letter that it “believes that AVC is likely selling other infringing products in the United States.” After an unsuccessful meeting, AVC filed its declaratory judgment action. The question is whether these facts are sufficient to show an actual controversy between the parties.”

So this can formally become a lawsuit pretty soon, unless money is coughed out in pre-trial settlement. This too often turns out to be of an antitrust nature. Microsoft does this a lot to vendors that sell GNU/Linux, Chrome OS, and Android devices. It’s a form of extortion, depending on how it’s done and how severe the threats are, quality of patents (if disclosed) aside.

Stryker v Zimmer

Earlier this month we found some coverage of the case at MIP which explained: “The Federal Circuit has affirmed the jury’s finding of wilful infringement but vacated and remanded the district court’s award of treble damages, in its Stryker v Zimmer decision”

“Patent lawyers are so dishonest about so-called innovation, so why not plagiarise too?”We wrote about Stryker/Halo in the past. “The jury awarded Striker [sic] $70 million in lost profits,” explains another site. “On appeal,” it added, “the Federal Circuit affirmed as to infringement, validity and damages. [...] Most of the new Stryker opinion involves a recitation of the Federal Circuit’s previous opinion affirming the district court as to infringement and validity. The last three pages, however, deal with the § 284 enhancement issue on remand. What’s interesting is that the Federal Circuit is maintaining its bifurcated approach to enhancement of damages, first requiring a predicate willfulness determination followed by the judge’s discretionary determination of whether and how much to enhance damages. This is essentially the same process as before. See i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (2010). Pre-Halo, the second step of the process (the district judge’s determination of whether and how much to enhance damages) was a totality-of-the circumstances analysis that was reviewed for abuse of discretion (i.e.: basically the same as the court required in Halo). Id. The Federal Circuit’s post-Halo approach to enhancement involves the same two steps, with the exception that the willfulness determination itself is guided by the holding in Halo rather than requiring the two-element objective/subjective determination of Halo. (The enhancement determination is too, but it’s hard to see much difference there.) Under Halo, the subjective component alone can be enough to establish willfulness.”

This was very good news for patent trolls. It still is.

Patent Lawyers and Plagiarism

“It sure looks as though patent trolling is a ‘thing’ in east Asia right now…”Patent lawyers say we need to respect patents, but they sure don’t respect copyrights some of the time. There is even plagiarism reported and potentially a lawsuit to provide evidence of it. “This creates some very interesting problems for lawyers,” said a patents pundit, “and calls to my mind the case a few years ago where a patent prosecutor was sued for using language from a patent in a specification for another client. I’m not a copyright lawyer, and so just raise this case for you to think.”

Patent lawyers are so dishonest about so-called innovation, so why not plagiarise too? Another article by Dennis Crouch speaks of patent malpractice today. It’s part of an outline of upcoming SCOTUS cases. To quote the introduction:

The Supreme Court will begin granting and denying petitions in early October. Meanwhile, several new petitions are now on file. Last week I wrote about the TC Heartland case as a mechanism for limiting venue. Without any good reason, the Federal Circuit overruled a 1957 Supreme Court case that had strictly limited patent venue as spelled out in the patent venue statute 1400(b). See VE Holdings (explaining its overruling of Fourco Glass). A result of VE Holdings is the expansive venue availability that facilitated the rise of E.D. Texas as the most popular patent venue. TC Heartland simply asks the Supreme Court reassert its Fourco holding – something that could almost be done with a one-line opinion: “REVERSED. See Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957).” The best arguments for the Federal Circuit’s approach are (1) the reasoning of Fourco itself is a bit dodgy; and (2) VE Holdings is well settled doctrine (decided 26 years ago) and Congress has revised the statutory provisions several times without amending. As a side note, several members of Congress have suggested they will act legislatively if SCOTUS fails to act.

Two new petitions (Grunenthal v. Teva and Purdue v. Epic) stem from the same Federal Circuit OxyContin case and focus on anticipation and obviousness respectively. Grunenthal v. Teva questions how ‘inherently’ operates for anticipation purposes. Purdue suggests that – despite the final sentence of Section 103, that the actual circumstances of the invention should be available to help prove non-obviousness (but still not be available to prove obviousness). Another new petition includes the BPCIA case Apotex v. Amgen that serves as a complement to the pending Sandoz case questioning the requirements and benefits of providing notice of commercial marketing.

USPTO is Getting Sued Again

“What they mean by “monetisation” is shakedown or a gentle form of blackmail.”Last week we wrote about fraud at the USPTO, or examiners defrauding taxpayers as Florian Müller and others chose to frame it. According to this article, the USPTO has another embarrassment to cope with. To quote: “In Hyatt v. USPTO, Civ. No. 16-1490 (D.Nevada, Filed June 22, 2016), Hyatt asks for injunctive relief to stop the PTO from repeatedly ‘reopening prosecution’ in his cases and consequently shielding the cases from judicial review by either the PTAB or Article III courts. Hyatt is experiencing the common reality of examiners reopening prosecution once an appeal brief is filed.”

The Ts: Patent Tax and Trolls

“Well, patents on corn oil extraction are deemed invalid by a court, probably because the USPTO just issues a patent for every piece of paper that comes in, leaving courts to clean up their mess.”In recent weeks we wrote about what had happened in east Asia, where patent trolling is becoming an epidemic. It sure looks as though patent trolling is a ‘thing’ in east Asia right now and here is IAM writing about a new non-practicing entity (IAM would never use the T word). To quote: “Just over a month since display maker Sharp came under the formal control of Hon Hai Precision Industry (Foxconn), big changes to its IP operations are already in the offing. Nikkei Asian Review reported on Tuesday that the Japanese company’s IP function would be hived off into a separate IP management company on October 3rd, with one goal being to create more value from Sharp’s massive global patent portfolio. Speaking exclusively to IAM, Foxconn IP chief YP Jou confirmed how the responsibilities for the Sharp portfolio will be divided within the sprawling Foxconn IP apparatus, and revealed the team’s priority when it comes to monetisation.”

What they mean by “monetisation” is shakedown or a gentle form of blackmail. Speaking of so-called ‘monetisation’, this new report says that “[f]ive big holders of cellular patents, including Qualcomm Inc., are joining an effort proposed by Ericsson AB to jointly license patents in an emerging field called the Internet of Things.”

“Some person with an MBA spreads some myths about patents right now, as if companies just can’t do without them.”Here comes the patent tax to surveillance of all Things (IoT). “Qualcomm has long derived a chunk of their revenue from licensing,” said this one person, “so this isn’t a big change for them.”

Qualcomm also came under heavy regulatory scrutiny for it. Watch what IAM wrote about this. These guys are looking at the surveillance of all Things (IoT) only from the point of view of patents; yes, patents alone.

Patents on Corny Stuff

“Unless we get engineers to enter the political systems, we’ll continue to have lawyers with their lawyer buddies from college writing laws, including patent laws.”Well, patents on corn oil extraction are deemed invalid by a court, probably because the USPTO just issues a patent for every piece of paper that comes in, leaving courts to clean up their mess. This new press release says that “GreenShift Corporation (OTCQB: GERS) provided an update regarding the ongoing patent infringement action involving GreenShift’s subsidiary, GS CleanTech Corporation (“CleanTech”), and its corn oil extraction patents.”

Corporate Domination of IP [sic] Law

Some person with an MBA spreads some myths about patents right now, as if companies just can’t do without them. Watch the corporate sob story: “It’s clear the current system is working for no one except those who want money for nothing. America’s inventive spirit has been the lifeblood of our economic growth for generations, moving us from horse-drawn carriages to electric cars in just over a century. Missteps by the courts, Congress, and the Patent Office have threatened to drive that underground, unwittingly rewarding a few large corporations happy to profit off the work of others at no cost to themselves. That’s not the American way.”

“…TPP threatens to spread software patents almost everywhere. It is a truly villainous back room deal and it should be crushed.”What he is trying to say is that people accused of infringement “want money for nothing” and that it’s the “American way” to give large companies monopolies, so as to prevent others from competing. He advocates protectionism, not an American way. Unless we get engineers to enter the political systems, we’ll continue to have lawyers with their lawyer buddies from college writing laws, including patent laws. It’s the sad truth. Here is another new lawyers’ congregation (EPIP) where they speak ‘on behalf’ of inventors, developers etc. Notice the “IP” in the event’s name. The notion of so-called ‘IP’ (an umbrella for several totally separate things) helps mislead people into equating patents with copyrights and secrets; this event wasn’t about patents as it covered other aspects of so-called ‘IP’ (an umbrella for several totally separate things) and when people say “IP” we should always ask them to be specific. IP means nothing; copyrights, trademarks, patents and trade secrets do. Here is how EPIP started: “The plenary session kicked off with Professor Rochelle Dreyfuss highlighting the expansion of trade secrets protection globally, and the worrying potential unintended consequences. There are increasing concerns that trade secrets and economic espionage law in the US is being used to racially profile researchers. (Interesting coverage on the targeting of Chinese-American researchers here.) Dreyfuss discussed the potential negative impact of non-compete clauses on innovation, employees and economic growth. She argued that criminalisation related to trade secrets generates an especially strong chilling effect as high-tech workers are unwilling to risk incarceration. Dreyfuss also observed that TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership) does not create a minimum trade secrets standard, and is trying to express a new norm that information shouldn’t be free.”

Just to remind readers, TPP threatens to spread software patents almost everywhere. It is a truly villainous back room deal and it should be crushed. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

With or Without the UPC (Which Will Probably Never Happen) Battistelli is Crushing the EPO and Ejects Experienced Staff, a Future Without Examination Possible

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:57 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The ‘reforms’ at the EPO turn out to be all about attracting the low-quality applicants from China, the US, etc. (quantity over quality)

Summary: A pessimistic but probably realistic take on what is happening at the European Patent Office (EPO), which is undergoing a silent transformation so wide-ranging that stakeholders deserve to know about it

LAST night we wrote about some of the latest lies from the EPO‘s President Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC. All that wishful thinking from Team UPC would have us believe that the UPC can still happen — the same kind of lie that Battistelli and his foot soldiers (like Margot Fröhlinger) try to make probable. Some of the latest nonsense about UPC ratification is dressed up as Dutch, but it is perfectly clear that the UPC cannot pass without the UK (and it won’t happen any time soon, if ever).

We are rather disturbed to see a sharp and abrupt departure from truth. Battistelli is comparing staff to criminals (a total fiction, entirely unsupported by facts) and last week he spread some nonsense about patent quality — a subject on which we last wrote last night as well as last week. Battistelli wants people to believe that patent quality at the EPO is still OK, citing his mouthpieces for 'evidence' when/if asked.

Not too long ago we learned that the damage caused to patent quality at the EPO was so profound that some doubt examination will even be carried out at all (or just some automated checks that are inherently flawed). Rubberstamps are just a wet dream or a fantasy of Battistelli and with the objective of “production” in mind he’s just sending the task of examination down the drain.

Here is a comment we found a few days ago:

For any patent office, it would be good to separate search and examiner processes. The two must be done by two separate departments so that each has good time to perform their part. This era of internet throws up tonnes of prior art.

Provide good time for the examiners to understand the inventions that they need to examine. They should be allowed to consult (in a clear transparent way, with written documentation of the conversations) applicant at all times during the search and examination.

Limit the number of claims per application (10-15 only), per category for a thorough search and examination.

It would be good to ask prior art directly from the inventors — as opposed to the patent offices of corresponding applications. Many come up with the most relevant ones only.

This relates to documents we saw in which depletion of stocks of workload is demonstrated. Sooner or later overcapacity (of staff) and under-performance (in examination terms) will destroy the EPO as it was once known. Remarking on “HR Reforms”, some highlight “a culture of pressure, fear and insecurity” (for workers). “In the meantime,” says a document we saw, “we hear worrying reform proposals” and they are as follows:

Pressurize: Further institutionalised production upward spiral: increasing production and productivity is a permanent mantra at the EPO. Since 2014 an 18% increase production target has been deemed adequate. The President has forecast a further 10% increase for 2016.

Hire…: Clear instructions have been given to recruit as quickly as possible as many examiners as possible: for instance instructions from the HR department (4.3) have been issued to effectively revise the decision leading to rejection of candidates in DG1 recruitment procedures;

… and fire: Revision of disciplinary procedures is due in the June AC meeting: if it passes, it will allow the President to dismiss staff for professional reasons – such as underproduction – without disciplinary committee;

A life after?: The “post-service integrity” reform [...] will allow the EPO President to decide if a former employee is allowed to work in whatever area: patent attorney, lobby, journalist, blogger, SUEPO, Charity, etc. The threat of a pension cut (a further change to be decided by the June AC meeting) or being deleted from the list of professional representatives before the EPO (managed by the EPO) is deterring for former employees;

As if this were not enough, further reforms seem to be under discussion:

Production: There are plans to apply the “corridors” (production targets linked to the individual grade) more systematically in the coming years. That would lead to substantial supplementary pressure for high grades employees, which happen to be the old part of the population and are considered less desirable staff in the EPO lately. Clearly an underproduction warning (see above) works as an adequate deterrent against inflexible staff.

Flexibility: There are rumours of plans to revise Art. 46 ServRegs, i.e. to “flexibilize” the use of “reserve status” to deal with overcapacity and render it much more economical for the EPO. As the rumour goes, a maximum of 2 years with 50% salary would be “offered” to staff chosen at the discretion of the President;

Insecure: Despite regular official denials (such as those of the Early Certainty dedicated site FAQs), rumours are recurrent that EPO Staff would be recruited on contracts: in particular, contracts for examiners may become the new standard [...] Unseen just a few years ago, according to the latest published staff changes, there is already a clear trend to recruit more and more examiners on contracts: In May, 17 of the 18 new entrant examiners were contract staff, in March all 21!

More uncertainty: Rumours are becoming insistent that a Pension reform is imminent: without going into details, the direction can only be detrimental to all staff, also in place, as the present administration considers that “acquired rights” are superfluous old-fashioned privileges.

Insiders already know a lot of the above (word of mouth), but do patent applicants know this? Is there a public realisation or broad understanding of the EPO’s race to the bottom? It’s scraping the bottom of the recruitment barrel, the human/labour rights spectrum, and the lowest levels in the patent ladder. Battistelli is doing to the EPO what Republican politicians did to Flint, Michigan. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

When EPO Liar-in-Chief Benoît Battistelli Defamed His Staff in Parliament, Comparing Them to Nazis and Criminals

Posted in Europe, Patents at 2:09 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: A reminder of the audacity of Benoît Battistelli, who in his capacity as a politician — a problem in its own right — slanders EPO staff

WHEN the man in charge of the EPO pretends there are no legitimate critics but only "Nazis" or "criminals" we know there’s a serious problem. Battistelli’s lies to the French Parliament in March 2016 were recalled by a reader of ours, who helped us get an accurate translation of what Battistelli had said. We need this for the record. Perhaps some people from the EPO can use that to take action against Battistelli, who is just a chronic liar with zero tolerance of criticism. We were amused to find this new comment last night. Posted by “Le roi est mort, vive le roi!” it said: “The King goes home!..the EPO has scheduled an EPO-SIPO conference in BB’s [Battistelli] hometown near Paris.” Battistelli and China’s regime have a lot in common. Both suppress criticism (even severely punishing — not just censoring — critics) while lying to the public on a daily basis. That’s a recipe for a great Battistelli meeting. There’s lots of common ground there.

“I recently came across this document,” told us a reader. We are making a local copy of it for long-term preservation purposes [PDF]. “It is the official minutes of a hearing which took place before the European Affairs Committee of the French Parliament on 1^st of March, 2016. The text of the minutes can be found online here. The PDF version is downloadable from this link. A video of the hearing (in French) can also be found here.”

“The hearing mainly consists of a rather boring presentation of facts and figures by Battistelli,” our reader told us. “However, it starts to get interesting when he is questioned about the social situation at the EPO and about the controversial disciplinary proceedings against staff representatives. The most interesting part is the following passage on page 15 of the minutes in which Battistelli responds to the questions about the disciplinary procedures and falsely accuses the dismissed staff representatives of having being involved in actions having a criminal character such as the alleged “use of Nazi symbols and slogans and insults to the German staff members on the basis of references to Nazism.””

Here is the relevant bit:

En l’occurrence, puisque vous abordez ce sujet, nous avons à faire face à la situation suivante : des représentants élus du personnel ont été conduits à démissionner six mois après leur élection, à la suite de harcèlement, de menaces, de tentatives de diffamation et de chantage.
Ces personnels ont porté plainte. Il est de mon devoir de m’assurer que leur plainte est entendue, fait l’objet d’une enquête, puis que, selon les faits avérés, nos procédures disciplinaires sont appliquées – je précise que la composition de notre comité disciplinaire est paritaire.
Je signale pour votre parfaite information que les faits qui ont justifié ces licenciements font l’objet d’une procédure au pénal ouverte en Allemagne, car ils sont de nature criminelle. Je tiens à votre disposition plusieurs éléments factuels à ce sujet, tels que l’emploi de symboles et de mots d’ordre nazis ainsi que d’injures visant des personnels de nationalité allemande sur la base de références au nazisme.

English translation:

In this case, since you have referred to the matter, we have to face the following situation: some elected staff representatives were driven to resign six months after their election, as a result of harassment, threats, defamation attempts and blackmail.

These staff members filed a complaint. It is my duty to ensure that their complaint is heard, forms the subject of an investigation, and that, on the basis of the facts determined, our disciplinary procedures are applied – I note that our disciplinary committee has a joint composition [Translator's Note: i.e. it includes members nominated by the staff committee].

For the completeness of your information, I would point out that the facts which justified the dismissals are the subject of pending criminal proceedings in Germany because they are of a criminal character. I can provide you with further factual details of this matter if required, such as the use of Nazi symbol and Nazi slogans and insults to the German staff members on the basis of references to Nazism.

We previously extracted (from the video) the audio of the relevant bits, but now we have the full text and a translation. “The minutes of the hearing and the associated video are part of the official public record of the French national parliament,” our reader noted. “They provide incontrovertible documentary evidence about Battistelli’s methods and the relentless smear campaign that he has been conducting against EPO staff representatives on the basis of false and unfounded accusations. It’s incredible that somebody who so openly and brazenly misleads a national parliament with such false and apparently libellous accusations can still hold on to his job.”

Battistelli has gotten away with scandals even worse than this. By failing to sack him the Administrative Council does itself irreparable damage and even after Battistelli is gone this damage will permeate and affect both the Office and the Council. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

09.18.16

After McRO v Namco Case (at CAFC) the Patent Microcosm Works Overtime to Produce Pro-Software Patents Propaganda, Smear the Supreme Court

Posted in America, Australia, Courtroom, Microsoft, Patents at 3:32 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Writing their nonsense only when it helps them attract ‘sales’ (where desired ‘products’ are typically lawsuits)

Summary: Increasingly desperate to convince people to pursue software patents and/or use their software patents to initiate growingly risky lawsuits (high risk of losing), the patent microcosm hugs McRO v Namco while distorting the complete record of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on this subject

WITH patent quality still a huge problem at the USPTO, as we last noted in our previous post, it’s only expected that many invalid software patents remain inside the system, probably hundreds of thousands of them (some have expired by now and will thus never be invalidated).

After Alice (2014 decision by the Supremes) a lot of software patents essentially became invalid, but only upon reassessment/assertion/challenge/appeal. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), quite notably, finds them invalid about 80%-90% of the time. CAFC is where software patents typically come to die (the question has not returned to the Supreme Court since 2014). There’s rarely a chance for appeal after that, maybe just a referral or some other extraordinary circumstances.

“They’re most upset at (and growingly vicious against) PTAB because it reverses decisions to grant (post-grant) at a very high rate and at a low cost (to the petitioner/appellant).”Patent lawyers are rightly upset (from their point of view that is hinged on profits from legal fees) at the Supremes for ‘interfering’ with the patenting of software. They are also upset at CAFC for invaliding so many software patents. They’re most upset at (and growingly vicious against) PTAB because it reverses decisions to grant (post-grant) at a very high rate and at a low cost (to the petitioner/appellant).

How do patent law firms respond to the current situation? Simple! They lie. They cherry-pick, they spread half-truths, they insult judges, they shame or block other people (yours truly included), and they generally show their true selfish selves. I have spent years writing about this and I saw how bad this can get. These people are not friends of investors and inventors. They’re leeches. They just try to come across as professional, objective, and law-abiding.

Last week we wrote several articles about McRO v Namco noting (quite correctly as it turned out) that patent law firms would start another Enfish-like extravaganza in the press. They latch onto this decision in an effort to market themselves and mislead the public (potential clients). Here, in one of their blogs, the predators are trying to take down the Supreme Court’s decision on Alice. Section 101 is named as though it’s a nuisance that needs to be removed. Here is one of the predators saying that he is “not sure CAFC using “preemption” in same way envisioned by SCOTUS in Alice-MCRO seems more like “passes step 2″ case” (refers to steps in the law).

“They just try to come across as professional, objective, and law-abiding.”An ‘article’ or ‘analysis’ (really marketing/self promotion) by Joel Bock, David Metzger, andEric Sophir of Dentons says “McRo decision gives software/computer-based patents a big boost,” but that’s pure sensationalism. This headline is wishful thinking nonsense as it ignores ~90% of CAFC’s decisions on the subject. How convenient…

Where were sites like these each time CAFC ruled AGAINST software patents? Don’t believe patent lawyers who say software patents in the US are suddenly fine. For those who think it’s just an isolated article or few articles, see also [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. We don’t have time to rebut each of these individually, but what we have here is rigged “media” of lawyers. Over 20 articles have been produced about a CAFC decision in favour of software patents and usually there are zero or very few about decisions against software patents. “Liars” might not be the right word to describe the authors by; they’re just opportunistic and they are selectively covering things so as to promote software patents under the guise of ‘analysis’. We saw this many times before and provided evidence of it.

“Don’t believe patent lawyers who say software patents in the US are suddenly fine.”Noteworthy is the fact that the legal firm which fought for software patents here is the same firm that works for Microsoft (on patents) and the EPO hired to bully me (Mishcon de Reya). Here is their press release about it. They are clearly hostile towards people like me, for at least 3 reasons (EPO pays them to send me threatening legal letters, Microsoft pays them to fight on the patent front, and they are working to defend software patents). Speaking of Microsoft, the company still says it “loves Linux” but it also loves software patents which are inherently not compatible with Linux. Here is yet another ‘article’ (from a Microsoft advocacy site) showing that Microsoft celebrates the above decision. We gave another example of this several days ago. The intersection of interests here is uncanny.

What did Watchtroll say about all this? We mentioned some of his responses before (widely-cited by others in the patent microcosm on the face of it), but now there’s more on other subjects [1, 2], still advancing a patent maximalism agenda (as if limiting patent scope is a sin).

Proponents of software patents, including those who track the impact of Alice closely, latch onto this one single decision in favour of a software patent while mostly ignoring the rest.

IAM’s writers, longtime propagandists of software patents and PTAB bashers, carry on passing off agenda as 'news', this time with the headline “After the CAFC’s Planet Blue decision early Alice motions may now fade away” (citing only the patent microcosm, e.g. a partner in New York-based firm Kroub Silbersher & Kolmykov).

“Proponents of software patents, including those who track the impact of Alice closely, latch onto this one single decision in favour of a software patent while mostly ignoring the rest.”We are still waiting for IAM to give a platform not just to patent lawyers who profit from software patents but actual programmers. Not that it ever happens…

“In the following piece,” IAM wrote, “Silbersher argues that the true significance of the case is not what it says about software patentability, but in the way it may affect how and when courts handle motions to dismiss based on the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Read with the earlier CAFC judgments in Enfish and Bascom, Silbersher states, Alice motions at the front end of a litigation are set to become significantly less attractive. For patent owners, that is very good news.”

That’s just another example of lawyers name-dropping Enfish and Bascom, hoping that readers will pay attention to none of the other decisions (all against software patents as of late). This isn’t reporting, it’s lobbying.

Speaking of lobbying, David Kappos rears his ugly head again. He was hired by large corporations including IBM (his former employer) to help demolish Section 101 and “IBM’s Chief Patent Counsel Manny Schecter welcomed the McRO decision,” according to the above. Indeed, based on his tweet, IBM is still against the Supreme Court and for software patents. Benjamin Henrion told him that “freedom of programming is a one liner.”

“How far will the patent lawyers go in their attempt to save software patents?”The software patents proponents of IBM, a huge patent bully, are at it again. They just don’t seem to care what the Supremes say. Here comes IAM trying to shoot down Section 101 at a legislative level. To quote: “Of course, the likes of former Chief Judge Michel would argue that the fundamental test that the court is trying to apply to determine whether something is patent eligible remains inherently flawed. But as the case law on 101 as it applies to software begins to mount from the Federal Circuit, members of the tech community can at least rest a little easier that question marks no longer hang over large parts of their patent portfolios. If nothing else, that is to be welcomed.”

IAM says that “members of the tech community can at least rest a little easier” with software patents, but that’s a lie because technical people dislike these. Reading IAM about patents is like watching Fox ‘news’ coverage of all things Obama. It’s just agenda disguised/dressed up as news. It’s agenda presented in the form of ‘news’, and truly a great service to Battistelli when he needs to support some lies of his.

Watch the patent microcosm trying to resurrect software patents by trashing the Supreme Court [1, 2] in light of the above. It’s like that pack of hyenas we wrote about a week ago. How far will the patent lawyers go in their attempt to save software patents?

“Is the Technology for Self-Driving Cars Patent-Eligible?”

“Had the USPTO never granted these software patents, all these efforts, time and money (going into the pockets of patent law firms) would be spared.”That’s the headline of this new ‘analysis’ from the patent microcosm, writing about software patents that are disguised as 'device' (cars), prior art being the driver. The answer is probably no; no for the courts but yes for the USPTO, which continues to grant almost everything that comes in, irrespective of quality, scope, prior art, etc. The examiners cheat on their timesheets (defrauding taxpayers), so shoddy work seems to be the norm. Here we have an article about Goldman Sachs filing for software patents on electronic payments — the one area where the invalidation rate of software patents is extremely high (around 90% of patents invalidated). Blockstream says it is pursuing patents in this area/domain, but it has not got any. Patent examiners oughtn’t grant any, either (citing the CLS Bank case).

Elsewhere in the news we find this short docker report about a case in the court of choice of patent trolls, one of several in the Eastern District of Texas. It upholds software patents, as usual, probably because it’s a farce of a court and it likes to brag about being friendly to the plaintiffs, especially trolls. Upon appeal, and if it reaches CAFC (expensive), the patent would probably be invalidated. This can be a rather traumatic experience to people who thought they had earned valid patents from the USPTO. Take the case of Keith Raniere; he used several software patents for frivolous litigation and got penalised very badly for it, as we noted earlier this month. Another new report about it says: “The plaintiff, Keith Raniere, filed the suit in February 2015 against AT&T and Microsoft, alleging the companies were using a number of his patents for intelligent switching systems for voice and data. In his lawsuit, Raniere claimed that AT&T used the software patents in its AT&T Connect service and Microsoft used the patents in its Lync 2010 products. [...] Following dismissal, both AT&T and Microsoft filed a motion to have their attorney fees covered by Raniere. AT&T requested that $935,300 be paid by the plaintiff and Microsoft presented $202,000 in costs and fees to be covered. Lynn requested both parties present proof of the costs and fees incurred from the case and denied Raniere any chance to correct or modify his lawsuit.”

Had the USPTO never granted these software patents, all these efforts, time and money (going into the pockets of patent law firms) would be spared. But therein lies the key point. The greater the mess, the more profit the patent microcosm makes. This isn’t only a US problem but a European one too (see all the UPC lobbying).

“The greater the mess, the more profit the patent microcosm makes.”We previously wrote about software patents in Australia (they sort of exist). This new post from the patent microcosm says: “The expansive approach of NRDC was subsequently relied upon by the Federal Court in 1991 to establish that computer programs were not excluded from patent eligibility under Australian law, a decision that effectively opened the gates for software patents in Australia.”

As we wrote about this before, we can safely say that Australian software developers are upset by that. They never wanted such patents; it’s the patent microcosm that did (while trying to convince developers that they too need software patents). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Poor Quality Control at the US Patent Office Gives Birth to ‘Unpatent’ and Gives a Voice to Critics

Posted in America, Patents at 1:56 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The USPTO must up its game on patent quality (not relying on PTAB and the courts correcting its errors after the grants) or face growing backlash that tarnishes its public image

When rogue entities like patent trolls and greedy lawyers virtually take over the patent system (for self enrichment, not for innovation) it leads to blowback like this. That’s just what happens when your patent office approves nearly every crappy application:

Unpatent Launches Combination Crowdfunding/Crowdsourcing Platform To Invalidate Stupid Patent

I’m always super interested in new ideas for hacking the patent system to get around just how broken it is — and the fact that Congress still seems to have no real desire to fix things — mainly because some of the largest patent system exploiters are standing in the way of necessary reform. So it’s always cool to hear of new ideas to try to fix things without having to bother with changing the law.

The latest interesting idea: Unpatent — a combination crowdfunding/crowdsourcing platform with the goal of invalidating stupid patents. Each stupid patent gets its own crowdfunding campaign, in which Unpatent looks to raise at least $20,000. This money does two things: it is used to pay for a legal challenge (a so-called “ex parte” challenge) of the patent at the Patent Office and to pay out rewards to those who find the compelling prior art to invalidate the patent. As you’ve likely figured out by now, that’s where the crowdsourcing comes in. Individuals can submit their own prior art examples, and if their examples are used in invalidating the patent, they can share in some of the money raised.

They’re kicking it off by challenging a patent on customizing stuff on the internet. It’s US Patent 8,738,435 on a “method and apparatus for presenting personalized content relating to offered products and services.” If that sounds familiar, it’s because it was EFF’s “Stupid Patent of the Month” back in February. The company holding this patent, Phoenix Licensing, has filed a bunch of troll lawsuits in (of course) the Eastern District of Texas.

This sounds similar to initiatives we covered before. People clearly understand that the USPTO (and growingly the EPO too) grants many patents in error. Being granted a patent these days does not mean you invented something novel, at least not until some court looks properly into it (profound analysis).

“Despite Ongoing Efforts,” says this new headline from IP Watch (perhaps referring to PTAB, which is under a constant attack), “USPTO Still Faces Patent Quality Issues” and to quote the outline: “The US Patent and Trademark Office continues to face claims of low patent quality despite a major initiative to address the situation. The agency has been the subject of several critical reports by oversight agencies and recently defended its patent quality improvements before Congress. Patent practitioners say that while patent quality may not actually have worsened over the past few years, the USPTO’s ongoing lack of financial and other resources, and inconsistent judicial decisions, are among the factors causing problems.”

One might think that the USTPO should heed the warning and stop issuing software patents. The courts sure don’t like them. But no, the USPTO’s examiners grant new software patents even though courts continue to invalidate them (new example). Is this quality control?

Here is a new brag that says “CyberArk, the cybersecurity company, announced on Wednesday (Sept. 14) it was awarded another patent by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for security risk detection technology.”

Again, that’s a software patent. There are many more like it and they serve to show that examiners at the USPTO are still doing a poor job. If there were to apply Section 101 (Alice), then these applications would not get far.

Efforts such as Unpatent serves to damage the legitimacy of the USPTO (affecting also its reputation when it comes to trademarks, not just patents), so it’s in the interest of the Office to correct this, in lieu with the recent reports of GAO. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Patent Trial and Appeal Board Under Attack by Law Firms, Which Will Soon Infiltrate It in the Form of ‘Bar Association’

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 1:26 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The vultures that are patent law firms keep circling around PTAB and hoping to destroy it, if not from the outside then from the inside, potentially regressing and ruining great progress for US patent quality since Mayo and Alice

THE Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has been invaliding software patents in large numbers. It’s hardly surprising that proponents of such patents hate PTAB with a passion. They would destroy it if they could. They’re still trying.

Watch blowhard Watchtroll attacking his government for actually adding/embedding some quality control in the patent system, even insulting people in the process (his latest ‘masterpiece’ is titled “Happy Birthday AIA: Celebrating an Unmitigated Disaster and the Destruction of American Innovation”). The same site also attacks AIA right now. It’s America Invents Act (AIA) which brought PTAB into existence. Here is what the USPTO wrote about AIA the other day, under the title “Five Years of Patent Pro Bono Success”. The Director of the PTO praises or at least marks a milestone which gave birth to PTAB (a good thing), but not everyone agrees, especially greedy lawyers. Watch this new article titled “AIA at 5 Years: PTAB’s Tectonic Change in Patent Litigation”. Published in Wall Street media, the article quotes lawyers but not the people affected (programmers or scientists for instance). What a wonderful way to generate a one-sided sob story for law firms.

As we have noted here for a number of years, PTAB is crushing software patents and this is a good thing. Michael Loney has had some decent coverage about it and “Pondering four years of PTAB proceedings” is one of his latest articles about it. He notes that there will be a “bar association solely dedicated to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” but quite unfortunately it “has been formed by more than 45 law firms” (i.e. the wolves guarding sheep). Is that really necessary? Here is the press release about it and another article titled “New bar association focuses on US Patent Office’s PTAB” (from a rather decent news source, for a change).

Anyone who fails to see the sheer bias of patent law firms against the PTAB must not have paid attention. Here is a new example, this one from Michael Dever of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, where patent law firms basically call “trolls” people who crush invalid patents that should never have been granted in the first place. They reject the term trolls when it comes to abusive entities that are bullying small companies but happily use the term to refer to invalidation of invalid patents. They also, by connotation, blame this on PTAB (IPRs).

Well, after a lot of PTAB coverage Michael Loney managed to speak to the recently-appointed chief judge of PTAB. This judge, according to Loney, “believes his biggest challenge is taking the Board into a new introspective phase. He talks to Michael Loney about rule changes, PGRs’ potential, Cuozzo, motions to amend and ditching the death squad reputation” (a reputation created by nasty law firms in the first place, as we noted here many times before).

Does this judge, David Ruschke, care to see that patent law firms are his enemies? They’re trying to destroy AIA, PTAB, and even his own job. They compare people who assess patents and ensure quality to “death squads” (and those who petition for review “trolls”).

Now, watch this latest article from Loney. It sounds as though he tries to slow PTAB down. Managing IP just won’t let them bury those software patents without FUD, will it? “Much of the talk since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) became active concerned how the Federal Circuit would deal with appeals of Board proceedings,” Managing IP says. That’s hardly a problem because in case of a backlog they can hire more staff or just proceed to more IPRs (in the interim). “The first question,” Managing IP says, “was would the appeals board be able to cope, given the unexpected popularity of PTAB filing. This is still an open question, with some strain beginning to show.”

That’s total nonsense. If they have growing demand for reviews (IPRs), then they should hire more people. It’s as simple as that. It’s a non-issue.

Holders of worthless software patents can run away to CAFC (which created software patents in the US) after PTAB does its work; that gives them no guarantees and that is absolutely fine. They don’t have this privilege carved in stone.

Here is Patently-O having a go at CAFC on PTAB initiation decision. It says that the “court also sided with the Board on Wi-Fi’s substantive argument – affirming the Board decision that the prior art anticipates.”

In other words, as one might expect, CAFC too decided that PTAB does the right thing.

One more article from Managing IP now speaks about the effect of PTAB on biotechnology/pharmaceutical patents — apparently a growth area of appeals. To quote:

Biotechnology/pharmaceutical companies were slow to use the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This is now changing, though this patent type has lower institution and invalidation rates

The birth of the infamous “patent death squad,” (the PTAB, for those less inclined to dramatic flair), has had powerful effects on patent holders. But while the technology sector dove headfirst into the uncharted waters, biotech and pharmaceutical companies hung back for some time.

The PTAB was, at first, a mystery, and then was filled mostly with challenges against what some practitioners refer to as “junk patents”, so those seeking to invalidate valuable pharmaceutical patents were reluctant to try their luck before the Board. AIA petitions can also be high risk-high reward.

Putting aside the sob stories and the repeated use of the smear (“patent death squad,” as even Managing IP calls it), what we have here are unjust patents that were erroneously granted facing the axe, potentially saving many people’s lives (once invalided, opening the door to generics for instance). See this crude new rant from IAM, which is protesting the UN’s request that life should be put before patents. Also see this blog post about Teva’s recently-invalided patents (covered here last week). To quote: “In the last two weeks, the PTAB has invalidated three patents covering Copaxone®, a multiple sclerosis drug marketed by Teva with annual sales of over $3 billion. Challenged by generic manufacturers Mylan and Amneal, the patents specifically covered a long-acting form of Copaxone®, known as “3-times-a-week COPAXONE® 40 mg/ml,” which Teva developed when the original version of Copaxone® was coming off patent protection.”

So one rich company might enjoy fewer monopolies and poor people might enjoy better access to drugs they need to survive. How is that a bad thing given that these patents should never have been granted in the first place?

PTAB serves an important function and that’s why a patent reform (AIA) introduced it in the first place. If patent law firms get their way, they will ultimately destroy, diminish or reduce the capacity of PTAB. They’re no friends, they’re vultures. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

EPO President Benoît Battistelli and Team UPC Are Still Lying, Don’t Believe a Word They Say

Posted in Europe, Patents at 12:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Newspeak and half-truths would actually be an improvement for them

Deceiver at the Internet Movie Database

Summary: A rather bulky rebuttal to some of the latest misleading statements from EPO management and law firms that wish to expand/advance their own careers at the expense of the integrity of the European patent system

THE SITUATION at the EPO is pretty grim right now, but what’s even worse is the UPC, which threatened to bring some of the worst elements of the USPTO into Europe and beyond.

“There are even very expensive events that are intended for shameless self-promotion by Battistelli.”EPO workers must have noticed that after the summer the EPO has barely said or announced anything. The managers seem to be trying to keep a low profile (as allegedly advised by their PR 'experts') and the only time they speak out is at staged events where there’s no opportunity for dissent (if there is dissent, the EPO will delete it from articles even after publication). There are even very expensive events that are intended for shameless self-promotion by Battistelli. The EPO plans a similar event for next year and is publicly asking all those whom it can message to play along. It even gets pushy and sends unsolicited promotion. Check out some of the latest EPO 'spam' to European universities (latest examples are in [1, 2, 3]). It’s pathetic if not painful to watch. As we noted here before, the EPO under Battistelli wastes a fortune essentially buying off the media for positive puff pieces in several countries [1, 2]. This is not sustainable. There are also staged pro-UPC events, supported by the EPO and funded by its PR 'experts'.

“There are also staged pro-UPC events, supported by the EPO and funded by its PR ‘experts’.”Not much is being said these days about the social climate at the EPO, but there’s propaganda in the making and we are prepared to respond to it (the Social Conference is scheduled for next month). Instead, right now the topic on everyone’s lips is the slip in patent quality and sometimes the slip of the UPC.

“The EPO likes to give the impression that it’s possible to achieve certainty for the applicant,” one person wrote a few days ago. Well, certainty that one can get a patent is not certainty that the patent is a valid one and that the courts will respect that patent. Watch how many patents granted by the USPTO are now dropping like flies at the courts (potentially destroying the applicant). The full comment said: “The EPO likes to give the impression that it’s possible to achieve certainty for the applicant and for the public by carrying out a high quality examination. This is bottucks. EPO search and examination is trivial compared with the effort expended when there is an imminent risk of winning/losing a lot of money. It’s a useful first approximation – nothing more.” In response to this one person wrote:

It is true that a high productivity or production does not necessarily lead to a lower quality. If people know what to do and how to do it, it is possible. However the prerequisite is that people have been correctly trained.

I have strong doubts that this is the case at the EPO in view of the tremendous production pressure put on newcomers. How can it be that after three years a newcomer is fully proficient in search and in examination? In the past, when search and examination were separate, the three year goal was for each function, now only for the mixed one.

Anyone believing that the EPO searches all dependent claims is believing in father Christmas, not to say more, and Mr Spigarelli should know better.

If an examiner finds an X document, if he finds one, then he stops the search. If he wants to have a good production and achieve a quick grant, he will find nothing but a pseudo X or a lot of A documents. Examiners are not all to be blamed, they do what they are told, and anyone resisting this will be mowed down.

Look at case law of the boards of appeal. It happens that the Board has to quote new prior art when deciding on appeal following refusal of an application. If the search is so wonderful, why would the boards be led to bring in new prior art? Whether it is correct to do so is an other point, but this is what is happening.

It is certain that if the claims are correctly drafted a search is easier to carry out. Simply trying to push the blame towards applicants is a bit too easy. The responsibility is shared in the present situation.

Simply churning out searches and grants is not necessarily a sign of quality. The objectives according to the plan are achieved, if not overthrown. Remember what happened to “planned” economies. But the top management of the EPO can feel happy. They are managers…. but certainly not leaders. But this is another story.

Several days ago we wrote about Battistelli's patent quality brag (comparing the EPO to arguably the worst patent office in the West when it comes to patent quality). Since then — as we are watching this closely — the brag has reached some Australian Web sites with a modified headline [1, 2]. This headline is a lie unless EPO and Battistelli are the same thing (we explained why it’s not, noting that staff — quite broadly — loathes Battistelli and disagrees with him). These news sites are rewriting the headline from Andrew Chung (or his editor at Reuters) like some other people did before them, so “Europe patent boss” is becoming just “EPO”. Not good…

One can be left with the illusion that the only takeaway is that EPO quality is absolutely fine and great when real figures/facts are somewhat alarming.

“One can be left with the illusion that the only takeaway is that EPO quality is absolutely fine and great when real figures/facts are somewhat alarming.”Responding to this latest nonsense from Battistelli, Benjamin Henrion (FFII) wrote: “Maybe he could comment on the progress bar patent?”

“Battistelli says EPO issues better patents than USPTO,” he added, but “always remember patent examiners can’t read binaries” (he added some informative image about the progress bar patent).

As we noted here a long time ago, Battistelli is pretty clueless about patents. It’s not his area at all and he’s not a scientist, either. He surrounds himself only by people who tell him what he wants to hear and reprimands the rest. EPO is quite a Pariah when it comes to patent quality, it ignores European law regarding patent scope, and it definitely breaks many laws in order to punish staff that speaks about it. Right now, says Henrion, the “EPO explains you with sounds on how they grant software patents https://e-courses.epo.org/wbts/cii/index.html”

That’s how bad it has become. The EPO is making enemies by promoting software patents and FFII might return to activism or take more actions if this carries on. Henrion told them (directly), “you really want a fight isn’t it?”

They are basically pushing for software patents while at the same time advocating/promoting the UPC, which in itself would be supportive of software patents.

“They are basically pushing for software patents while at the same time advocating/promoting the UPC, which in itself would be supportive of software patents.”Regarding Battisteli's UPC lobbying and the latest lies from the EPO, backlash is apparent online (there are several opponents of the UPC there). The only exception to this backlash is Team UPC, i.e. the patent law firms that stand to benefit from the UPC. Here it is pushing for ratification in the UK because democracy, to these people at least, does not matter. The lawyers want more money. This post says that “while the UK continues not to ratify the UPC Agreement, the system, at least in its current form, cannot come into force. If the EU and the participating member states fail to reach an agreement enabling (or at least attempting to enable) continued UK involvement, there will be no upheaval in the UK patent litigation system upon Brexit, and no UPC operating elsewhere in Europe. This would appear to strengthen the UK’s negotiating position in Article 50 negotiations, compared with the scenario in which it had already ratified the UPC Agreement.”

“The opinion is worth a read, if you can stomach the legalese,” one person told us, but it seems to be so heavily biased in favour of the UPC, as one can expect from legal firms. They’re not independent or objective observers.

Here is EIP becoming so delusional that it wants us to assume the UPC can happen in the first place (without the UK), in order for the UK to join it later. Watch their optimism in Twitter: “UK #IP organisations obtain legal opinion on #UK participation in #UPC post #brexit, UK can still take part”

“We never saw any criticism of the UPC from these folks.”Team UPC’s echo chamber (basically a bunch of Battistelli-controlled mouthpieces and UPC proponents patting each other on the back/shoulder) can also be seen at Managing IP, which set up events in which to promote the UPC last week (or almost a fortnight ago) [1, 2, 3, 4].

One thing that we mentioned the other day was Italy’s step towards something that can never happen in the first place. Now we have Team UPC, the antidemocratic group of lawyers (and Bristows in this case), pushing for a dead (Trojan) horse to enter the gates of Italy. Have they no sense of shame? Have they now given up yet?

“UPC would put Italian SMEs at a disadvantage because of the choice of official language,” Henrion told them and the facts are on his side. The UPC would also put Italian SMEs at risk of more lawsuits and SMEs rightly complain about this. Henrion said that “maybe FFII should commission a legal opinion on whether UPC can bring us software patents and trolls.”

“They are trying to convince the already-convinced (who are paid for it) that the UPC is great and then pressure British politicians while conveniently misleading, tricking and misrepresenting their views.”Speaking of Bristows, their employees are still pushing for the UPC (which is effectively dead) in public events. One of them has just spoken of Milan and said she “feels incredibly at home in Italy, which is apropos given her heritage. So when she finally landed in Milan this morning for this year’s AIPPI Congress her cares melted away. That is until she saw her agenda….This year’s AIPPI Congress is jammed packed with incredible events, from panel sessions dealing with everything from contributory patent infringement to IP and food, to lunch time sessions focusing on expert evidence and study questions on copyright and linking, IP securities and added matter. The final day will be devoted to a very political topic – the fate of the UPC post-Brexit followed by a biosimilars preliminary injunction mock trial in the UPC. The AmeriKat [from Bristows] and a team of incredible friends and contributors, including her colleague Vanessa Rieu (Bristows), will be reporting from the events on the IPKat over the coming days.”

By “reporting” she probably means advocating, as usual. We never saw any criticism of the UPC from these folks.

In response, says one patent attorney: “Interesting UK counsel opinion here. No legal bar to UK participation in UPC – only political issues.”

Not true. He links to a PDF from EIF’s Web site [PDF], but again, this is a case of an Team UPC echo chamber, nothing else. They are trying to convince the already-convinced (who are paid for it) that the UPC is great and then pressure British politicians while conveniently misleading, tricking and misrepresenting their views. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

Links 18/9/2016: Emacs 25.1, Slackel 6.0.7

Posted in News Roundup at 10:51 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend