03.05.17

Gemini version available ♊︎

PTAB and CAFC Crush Patents on Business Methods and Software, So Dennis Crouch Tries to Slow Them Down

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 2:12 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Academic for patent maximalists, like those ‘oil academics’?

Dennis D. Crouch

Summary: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) have together eliminated perhaps several thousands of patents (even more by extension, by means of precedence), so the meta-industry associated with such patents strikes back, and occasionally this is painted as scholarly analysis albeit inherently biased

THE USPTO is full of rubbish patents (some of which infamously rubbish and the subject of public ridicule, e.g. this one), so there’s somewhat of a backlog for PTAB to deal with, essentially ‘undermining’ — or correctly invaliding — patents that should never have been granted at all (with or without further amendments).

“Not only can PTAB deal with many patents at one time; it can also do that at an affordable rate (easy access to appeals process) and without the patent aggressor asserting anything in court.”We recently came across this list of newly-issued patents and found among them a Dell patent on an antifeature, namely a “seamless method for booting from a degraded software raid volume on a UEFI system.” (for those who don’t know what UEFI is, see our Wiki). Recovery from error aside (in an already-expensive case of storage redundancy), why use UEFI in the first place?

The patent goes to Texas, where Dell originates from:

Dell Products, Round Rock, Texas, has been assigned a patent (9,569,297) developed by two co-inventors for “seamless method for booting from a degraded software raid volume on a UEFI system.” The co-inventors are Ahmad A.J. Ali of Austin, Texas, and Charles Rose of Nashua. The patent application was filed on July 16, 2014 (14/333,232).

This sounds like it involves hardware or a device (RAID), but plenty of RAIDs actually get implemented in software these days and UEFI itself is purely software, simply slapped on some chip. The above seems like a possible candidate for invalidation, e.g. by means of Alice, but putting all that aside, who would actually invalidate such a patent unless Dell chooses to take this to court (or threaten behind closed doors), in which case still there is no guarantee at all that a case would end without a settlement, i.e. without the patent facing any scrutiny. In most cases, companies such as Dell just threaten using a large bundle of patents (Microsoft is alleged to be using hundreds at a time) in order to overwhelm the target and overburden the defense, adding extraordinary volume to it, assuring it would be too expensive to pursue defense (settlement would be cheaper, even if at the cost of millions of dollars).

“We need more of PTAB. It needs to grow by orders of magnitude and clear the virtual ‘backlog’ which is rubbish patents waiting to be invalidated.”Such is the injustice incurred by a lax and lazy patent office. All the excruciating costs are being passed outwards, i.e. to so-called ‘externalities’. This is where PTAB comes handy. Not only can PTAB deal with many patents at one time; it can also do that at an affordable rate (easy access to appeals process) and without the patent aggressor asserting anything in court. We need more of PTAB. It needs to grow by orders of magnitude and clear the virtual ‘backlog’ which is rubbish patents waiting to be invalidated.

Patent maximalists obviously loathe PTAB. Some of them speak of it more politely than others. Watchtroll just insults judges, whereas Dennis Crouch — being an academic — must remain more subtle about it. It’s being agreed, he recently asserted, that “an expert can make conclusions of obviousness/non-obviousness and that the PTO can rely upon those statements.”

Here is the whole relevant part and how it relates to PTAB:

Expert Testimony on the Conclusion of Obviousness: In the inter partes reexamination case here, the issue arose with the patent challenger (Strava) used an expert witness to testify to the legal conclusion that the claims at issue were obvious. This is problematic because in ordinary circumstances it is improper for an expert witness to testify as to a question of law. Rather, the ordinary use of expert testimony is solely to “help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” FRE 702. Of course, the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to the Patent Trial & Appeal Board proceedings or patent reexaminations.

On appeal here, the Federal Circuit appears to agree with the challenger – that an expert can make conclusions of obviousness/non-obviousness and that the PTO can rely upon those statements.

We had this subject covered in last week's article and more articles before that. It’s a common theme of outcomes and this was heavily covered recently, in light of cases like Apple, Inc. v Ameranth, Inc. [1, 2] — a case which has gone on since the end of last year [1, 2].

“Both PTAB and CAFC increasingly go after patents on business methods, not just software patents, which are inherently similar in many cases (as many business operations are done on computers through software).”The latest on Ameranth, courtesy of Foley & Lardner LLP (law firm), says that “Apple successfully invalidated three patents for failure to recite patent eligible subject matter. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 2015-1792, 2015-1793 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patents relate to synchronous communication systems for electronically generating and transmitting menu selections. While the covered technology is not directly related to personalized medicine, the Federal Circuit’s review of the patents’ specifications and the court’s claim constructions in the context of a 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge is instructive to patent applicants seeking to patent methods that may be characterized as an abstract idea, such as methods linking treatment options or clinical trials to potential patients.”

This CBM challenge, using § 101, was successful also at the CAFC, as is usual. Both PTAB and CAFC increasingly go after patents on business methods, not just software patents, which are inherently similar in many cases (as many business operations are done on computers through software).

Professor Crouch is, in our humble assessment, just trying to slow down PTAB (or appeals of its determinations). PTAB, which actually did good work and improved the US patent system, is of no good for the likes of Crouch. They view it as a threat to their profession, as we noted here several years ago.

“We have already explained a sort of ‘scatterback’ effect at CAFC, wherein an avalanche of appeals lands on CAFC’s lap.”Michael Loney, writing from a litigation capital, says that “Law professor Dennis Crouch is calling for the Federal Circuit to not give Rule 36 affirmances in PTAB appeals, arguing it is required by statute to issue an opinion. The court has continued to issue them but has asked for briefing in two en banc rehearing requests of affirmances” (it has a lot to catch up with).

We have already explained a sort of ‘scatterback’ effect at CAFC, wherein an avalanche of appeals lands on CAFC’s lap. They need to rush things up a bit, otherwise the whole system will get clogged up and the queue — or ‘backlog’ so to speak — will grow unbearably long.

“Maybe that will teach patent holders to stop wasting CAFC’s time with these appeals, which are fruitless about 4 out of 5 times anyway (as the appeals are meritless).”Resistance from patent maximalists when it comes to PTAB — which continues to enjoy CAFC’s and the Supreme Court’s support — is understandable, but the patent maximalists are not the actual industry. They just try to justify their own needless and growingly-sordid existence, which gave rise to trolls and extortion rackets. Now that PTAB is axing lots of crappy patents we expect to see Crouch continuing to shower us with posts such as this, ranting about lack of opinion. “Another new petition for rehearing,” he wrote the other say, “has been filed with the Federal Circuit asking the court to reconsider its Rule 36 Jurisprudence in light of the statutory requirements that the court issue an opinion in cases appealed from the Patent & Trademark Office.”

He said that “[a]fter losing before the PTAB, the petitioner appealed and the Federal Circuit issued a R.36 “Affirmance without Opinion.””

“Stop worrying so much about patent holders and stop comparing patents to property (patents are certainly not property).”Yes, well done. Do it even faster. Maybe that will teach patent holders to stop wasting CAFC’s time with these appeals, which are fruitless about 4 out of 5 times anyway (as the appeals are meritless).

In another post from the same site it is being argued that “[t]he Supreme Court has asked for the USPTO’s input on whether it should hear the pending dispute Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group (Supreme Court 2017). The case again raises constitutional questions as to the power of an executive agency (the USPTO) to cancel issued patent rights.”

Stop worrying so much about patent holders and stop comparing patents to property (patents are certainly not property). It’s stuff like the above which led us to treating Crouch less as an academic and more as a front for patent maximalists. He demonstrates that not only Big Oil has an impact — typically financial strings — on academia.

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Reddit
  • email

Decor ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

Decor ✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

Decor ▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

DecorWhat Else is New


  1. Jim Zemlin's Wife is Funded by Puppies (Microsoft)

    Jim Zemlin — like his wife — is bagging millions from Microsoft, but that’s clearly a conflict of interest for the Linux Foundation



  2. Links 18/05/2022: More Defections From WordPress to Gemini

    Links for the day



  3. Links 18/05/2022: PikaScript and cURL's Annual User Survey

    Links for the day



  4. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 17, 2022

    IRC logs for Tuesday, May 17, 2022



  5. Phoronix: Microsoft and Phoronix Sponsor (and Close Microsoft Partner) AMD All Over the Place

    When you’re taking massive 'gifts' from AMD (and also some from Microsoft) maybe it’s not surprising that editorial decisions change somewhat…



  6. EPO Has No F-ing Oversight

    Earlier today SUEPO mentioned this new article demonstrating that EPO President António Campinos can very obviously and blatantly violate the Code of Conduct of the Office without facing any consequences; there are translations too, so the report is now available in four languages



  7. [Meme] Linux-Rejecting Foundation

    The Linux Foundation never really leads by example; by default, it uses proprietary software



  8. Linux Foundation Almost Never uses Open Source

    The Linux Foundation uses proprietary software (look where they hire and take money from) and be sure they're probably not even aware of it



  9. Links 17/05/2022: Many More Games on GNU/Linux, YaST Development Report

    Links for the day



  10. Links 17/05/2022: Rocky Linux 8.6 and Budgie Desktop in Fedora

    Links for the day



  11. Patent Examiners Rising Up Against EPO Abuse

    Unhappy with the law-breaking autocracy (the EPO‘s management breaks the law as a matter of routine), fast-deteriorating working conditions and rapidly-decreasing quality of work (or lack of compliance with the law), workers have escalated further, topping off strikes and industrial actions with a large-scale petition



  12. [Meme] What Managers (Really) Mean by Acting Professionally

    The myth of 'professionalism' needs to die along with the façade of conformity as prerequisite for employment (Linus Torvalds can work just fine in a bathrobe in his own home)



  13. Internal Poll: 93% of European Patent Office (EPO) Workers Are Unhappy With the EPO

    On top of strike/s and industrial action/s there are now also petitions; at the EPO, almost all staff is "disgruntled" because of utterly corrupt and defunct leadership



  14. Links 17/05/2022: OpenSUSE Leap 15.4 Release Candidate

    Links for the day



  15. IRC Proceedings: Monday, May 16, 2022

    IRC logs for Monday, May 16, 2022



  16. Links 16/05/2022: FreeBSD 13.1 and Inkscape 1.2 Released

    Links for the day



  17. Archiving Latest Posts in Geminispace (Like a Dated Web Directory But for Gemini)

    Earlier today we saw several more people crossing over from the World Wide Web to Gemini; we're trying to make a decent aggregator and archive for the rapidly-expanding Geminispace, which will soon have 2,500 capsules that are known to Lupa alone



  18. Microsoft Vidal Does Not Want to Listen (USPTO is Just for Megacorporations)

    Microsoft Vidal knows her real bosses. They’re international corporations (multinationals like Microsoft), not American people.



  19. Links 16/05/2022: China Advances on GNU/Linux and Maui 2.1.2 is Out

    Links for the day



  20. Jim Zemlin: Chief Revenue Officer in 'Linux' Seat-Selling Foundation

    Board seats in the Linux Foundation are basically a product on sale, based internal documents



  21. Reminder: Linux Foundation's Last IRS Filing is Very Old (Same Year the CFO Left)

    People really need to ask the Linux Foundation, directly, why its filings are years behind; this seems like a sensitive subject



  22. Linux Foundation Does Not Speak for GNU/Linux Users

    There's a serious problem in the "Linux" world as the so-called 'Linux' Foundation claims to speak for us (the GNU/Linux community) while in fact speaking against us (on the payroll of those looking to extinguish us)



  23. IBM's Lennart Poettering on Breaking Software for Pseudo Novelty

    Recently-uploaded ELCE 2011 clip shows a panel with Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Thomas Gleixner, Paul McKenney, and Lennart Poettering (relevant to novelty or perceived novelty that mostly degrades the experience of longtime users, e.g. Wayland and systemd)



  24. IRC Proceedings: Sunday, May 15, 2022

    IRC logs for Sunday, May 15, 2022



  25. Links 15/05/2022: Linux 5.18 RC7 and Calls for More Mass Surveillance

    Links for the day



  26. Audio: Mark Shuttleworth Marketed to Young Males, With Sexy Pictures

    The Web is rotting away, old links become broken links within months or years, so I’ve decided to encode a 3-minute segment of the whole as Ogg



  27. What a Difference Half a Decade Makes (When Linux Foundation is 'Having Fun')

    Media shaming campaigns may have taken their toll on the founder of Linux, who is now bossed by someone who rejects Linux and is married to a Microsoft booster. Like Richard Stallman under FSF guidance (and conditions for return, mostly for fear of further media assaults and attack dogs), he has become a more publicity-shy and private person. The Linux Foundation has in effect reduced the founder of what it’s called after (Linux) into a weekly release manager and mascot, whose brand it is gradually diluting/cheapening.



  28. Links 15/05/2022: GNU libiconv 1.17

    Links for the day



  29. [Meme] Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) Cannot Be Reconciled With the Law

    Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC)? Impossible. But Team UPC counts on an endless torrent of fake news managing to convince you (and more importantly politicians) otherwise.



  30. Even Team Battistelli is Sometimes Admitting -- Out in Public! -- That Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Neither Legal Nor Desirable

    Daniel X. Thomas and other people who are “too old to punish” (consequences to their career profoundly minimised owing to seniority) are among those who push back against the Unitary Patent or Unified Patent Court (UPC); any sane person — not a career-climbing litigation zealot — can identify the pertinent facts and realise that what’s going on here is an injustice of unprecedented proportions in the patent discipline


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts