09.25.18

Technology Groups and Innovators Bemoan Attempts to Override the Courts to Promote Patent Maximalists’ Agenda by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu

Posted in America, Patents at 6:43 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Give me liberty

Summary: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not listening to the views of actual innovators; it seems to be serving just the patent and litigation ‘industry’ (i.e. those who profit from illegitimate patents and baseless lawsuits)

THE EPO was run by a corrupt tyrant for 8 years; he left his loyal compatriot in charge. At the USPTO, by contrast, a technical person (Michelle Lee) ran the Office for a number of years, undoing decades of injustice. Unlike lawyers or politicians or bankers (Iancu, Battistelli and Campinos, respectively), she persistently backed the appeal boards, which at the US are known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a relatively new construct that deals with inter partes reviews (IPRs), typically invalidating bogus patents using 35 U.S.C. § 101, inspired by the highest court in the United States.

“Unlike lawyers or politicians or bankers (Iancu, Battistelli and Campinos, respectively), she persistently backed the appeal boards, which at the US are known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a relatively new construct that deals with inter partes reviews (IPRs), typically invalidating bogus patents using 35 U.S.C. § 101, inspired by the highest court in the United States.”Michelle Lee got pushed out, partly by a mob of patent maximalists. When a replacement was found for her IAM pressured him to crush PTAB and now it’s jubilant to say “PTAB reforms latest move by PTO to tackle Board’s “perception problem”” (whose perception?).

“After proposed change in claim construction standard, new procedures may lessen need for Congressional action,” it says. No, there was no need for Congressional action; those who asked for Congressional action are crazed patent maximalists who know no boundaries to patent law.

“Michelle Lee got pushed out, partly by a mob of patent maximalists.”The person who visited Iancu and pressured him on behalf of the patent trolls’ lobby (IAM) wrote: “Both look good for patent owners but will be a lot of focus now on how they work in practice” (because this person, Richard Lloyd, will continue to attack PTAB irrespective of what happens next).‏

A person who advocates access to medicines wrote: “USPTO head wants to limit exceptions to patent subject matter.”

He linked to this tweet from a patent maximalist, who said: “This proposal is for new guidance for @uspto Examniers. It wouldn’t involve any new legislation and would be based on previous court decisions.”

“…this would further widen the gap between USPTO determinations and courts’ decisions. How is that beneficial?”Cherry-picking thereof. That’s what lawyers do. They ignore and disregard what doesn’t suit them. That’s what Iancu is. He’s a lawyer. The same person also said: “Outstanding speech at #IPOAM18 by Director Iancu that outlines a proposal for finally resolving the 101 mess – at least at the @USPTO. The proposal clearly defines the limited, excluded categories.”

Well, that will mean nothing to courts; in fact, this would further widen the gap between USPTO determinations and courts’ decisions. How is that beneficial? Maybe that’s fine for law firms because they profit from litigation no matter if it’s entirely frivolous. Bogus patents, bogus lawsuits… what do they care? They just do the billing. Their finance department is happy.

Lisa Ouellette, a patents (and other things) scholar, was citing Dennis Crouch yesterday. Crouch had posted a full transcript, which included this from Iancu:

So first, what exactly should be captured by the judicial exceptions to §101? In essence, and because we no longer want to mush subject matter with the conditions of patentability, the exceptions should capture only those claims that the Supreme Court has said remain outside the categories of patent protection, despite being novel, nonobvious, and well-disclosed. And what are the categories of inventions that the court told us that we should not patent even where the applicant demonstrates full compliance with Sections 102, 103 and 112? The Supreme Court gave us the answer: the “basic tools of scientific and technological work.”

Ouellette seems a tad concerned by Iancu’s plan, which is trying to bypass the law and the Supreme Court. Iancu is Trump’s “swamp” material (his firm had worked for Trump before he got this job), so this does not exactly shock us.

Quoting Ouellette about the IPO meeting from yesterday (IPO is a front group of patent zealots):

In remarks at the annual IPO meeting today, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu said “the USPTO cannot wait” for “uncertain” legislation on patentable subject matter and is “contemplating revised guidance” to help examiners apply this doctrine. Few are likely to object to his general goal of “increased clarity,” but the USPTO should be sure that any new guidance is consistent with precedent from the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit.

As most readers of this blog are well aware, the Supreme Court’s recent patentable-subject-matter cases—Bilski (2010), Mayo (2012), Myriad (2013), and Alice (2014)—have made it far easier to invalidate patent claims that fall under the “implicit exception” to § 101 for “laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Since Alice, the Federal Circuit has held patents challenged on patentable-subject-matter grounds to be invalid in over 90% of appeals, and the court has struggled to provide clear guidance on the contours of the doctrine. Proponents of this shift call it a necessary tool in the fight against “patent trolls”; critics claim it creates needless uncertainty in patent rights and makes it too difficult to patent important innovations in areas such as medical diagnostics. In June, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) introduced the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2018, which would amend § 101 to largely undo these changes—following a joint proposal of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO)—but Govtrack gives it a 2% chance of being enacted and Patently-O says 0%.

In the absence of legislation, can the USPTO step in? In his IPO speech today, Director Iancu decries “recent § 101 case law” for “mush[ing]” patentable subject matter with the other patentability criteria under §§ 102, 103, and 112, and he proposes new guidance for patent examiners because this mushing “must end.” The problem is that the USPTO cannot overrule recent § 101 case law. It does not have rulemaking authority over substantive patent law criteria, so it must follow Federal Circuit and Supreme Court guidance on this doctrine, mushy though it might be.

Under the Supreme Court’s patentable-subject-matter inquiry, as summarized in Alice, once a patent claim is determined to fall within a statutory category of a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,” step 1 is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept,” and if so, step 2 is to “examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the [ineligible concept] into a patent-eligible application”—where “simply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality” is “not enough.”

It’s not clear how Iancu thinks or why Iancu believes this will improve things. It will only further exacerbate things as he does not control the courts (nor should he). But it’s all about law firms, not science and technology.

This morning we saw this article titled “Patent 101: Patent Process FAQs For Inventors” (not about Section 101).

“As for the USPTO, it continues to unmask himself as little more than an agent of patent extremists.”“Patent attorneys and patent agents (“patent practitioners”) [EXPLOIT] the best and brightest engineers and scientists on a daily basis,” (for profit) it should say, but it doesn’t use the word “exploit”. That is what the opening paragraph says anyway. Inserting the word “exploit” makes it a lot more sensible. Gene Quinn, another such exploiter, published in Watchtroll an article titled “Are all U.S. Patent Claims Invalid?”

So yesterday too he carried on with strawman arguments as headlines. Of course the answer to this rhetorical question is “no”.

Josh Landau from the CCIA, which represents a lot of technology companies, responded with “Getting The Future Backwards: Iancu’s Comments On § 101 At IPO” and to quote:

This morning, Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Director Iancu gave remarks at the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Annual Meeting. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given IPO’s efforts to legislatively overturn the Supreme Court’s recent cases reinforcing the bar on patents on products of nature and abstract ideas, Director Iancu’s remarks focused on patentable subject matter—§ 101.

While the remarks aren’t formal guidance, what Director Iancu has described is concerning. Specifically, he states that the guidance would instruct examiners to “allow[] claims that include otherwise excluded matter as long as that matter is integrated into a practical application.”

As for the USPTO, it continues to unmask himself as little more than an agent of patent extremists. This is what the official account tweeted: “Let’s stop commingling the categories of invention on one hand, with the conditions for patentability on the other. Section 101 is about subject matter,” said #USPTO Director Andrei Iancu at @IPO today. Read his full remarks: http://bit.ly/2QVr7fq .”

“At the end of the day, these people may be dooming their own patent system by looking to broaden patent scope at the Office even though courts push back, leaving patent holders in a limbo, uncertain of the validity or value (if any) of their patent/s.”Dennis Crouch has meanwhile gone ahead and put a dollar sign ($) in “USPTO” to better explain what USPTO is about: it’s all about greed. But he actually made/used the image for other reasons (“SUCCESS ACT”).

Neil Wilkof (IP Kat) has also just revealed that Iancu is still attending and opening events of patent extremists rather than science and technology events. Whose “SUCCESS” is this man pursuing? Maybe the occupation he came from — the one which exploits scientists and technologists. The USPTO certainty got priorities all wrong. Very wrong. To quote:

The initial speaker was Mr. Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director United States Patent and Trademark Office. Mr. Iancu took the audience back to the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair and Chicago Columbian Exposition, which in his words ushered in the modern world of technology. His focus was on the race over who would provide the lighting for the event? On the one hand, there was Thomas A. Edison and his invention of direct electrical current, on the other, the development of alternating current, by Nikola Tesla (the inventor, not the car), supported by George Westinghouse. As noted by Mr. Iancu, Westinghouse (and Tesla) won the bid.

For Mr. Iancu, what we learn from this story is that the patent system both encourages invention as well as patent design around, both of which are integral parts. But in today’s world, the outcome of the war over electrical currents and the role of patent protection in that contest, are not enough. Now, the USPTO is equally(?) focused on how to incentivize invention (read: innovation), although specifics offered were few, other than to emphasize the role of education.

Watchtroll is of course also engaging in yet more PTAB bashing (as always), e.g. “USPTO Substantially Revises PTAB Standard Operating Procedures” (Iancu cannot change patent law itself, he merely lowers patents’ certainty by lessening scrutiny in the office, not in patent courts, and does so at his own peril, lessening the perception of “danger” while at the same time reducing the appeal of US patents). Here is what Patently-O said about it:

Revised SOP2 includes, among other things:

Creation of the POP, typically comprising the Director, the Commissioner for Patents, and the Chief Judge of the PTAB;
Identification of the circumstances when POP members may delegate their authority, and to whom;
Provision of notice to the parties when POP review takes place, as well as the identification of the POP members in a particular case;
Explanation of the standards, procedures, and timing for requesting POP review in a pending case on rehearing; and
Revised procedures for designating a decision previously issued by the PTAB as precedential or informative.

Michael Loney from another patent maximalists’ site wrote this:

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has revised its standard operating procedures on panelling of matters and precedential and informative decisions

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has revised its standard operating procedures (SOPs) on panelling of matters (SOP1) and precedential and informative decisions (SOP2).

Loney’s colleague, Ellie Mertens, then wrote about “PTAB cases to watch for the rest of 2018″ as follows:

Important pending Patent Trial and Appeal Board cases relate to issues ranging from assignor estoppel to the constitutionality of PTAB judges’ appointments

The top nine cases related to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to watch for the rest of 2018 relate to issues ranging from assignor estoppel as it relates to inter partes reviews (IPRs) to the constitutionality of PTAB…

As readers may recall, Iancu moved the chief judge of PTAB (although it may have been voluntary) after he had been smeared by patent maximalists (maybe that’s the “perception” he was alluding to). He’s an actual scientist, for a change. The maximalists already try to replace him (as always) with someone who better suits their agenda. At the end of the day, these people may be dooming their own patent system by looking to broaden patent scope at the Office even though courts push back, leaving patent holders in a limbo, uncertain of the validity or value (if any) of their patent/s.

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

This post is also available in Gemini over at:

gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2018/09/25/uspto-not-for-innovators/

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

What Else is New


  1. Links 14/5/2021: KDE Plasma 5.22 Beta and GNOME 40 in Gentoo

    Links for the day



  2. Audio: “Unjust Computing Clamps Down” by Richard Stallman

    The FSF has finally uploaded the LibrePlanet talk of Richard Stallman



  3. Links 13/5/2021: KDE Gear 21.04.1 and LibreOffice 7.0.6

    Links for the day



  4. The EPO's War on Justice and Assault on the Law -- Part 4: The President of the Boards of Appeal

    A deeper look into the ‘sausage factory’ that is EPO tribunals certainly helps us understand the inherent bias of many decisions, including a recent decision on European software patents like a controversial simulation patent



  5. Judging the Judges

    Today we shall take a closer look at Carl Josefsson, a person who shall become a figure of interest if he sends EPO courts to the United States in clear violation of the EPC (looking to rubber-stamp an unlawful decision already made before this case even started)



  6. When EU Authorities Tell You to Complain to the EPO Itself About EPO Privacy Violations...

    “Kafkaesque” at the EPO; Kafka could do a whole novel about the flirtations with or affairs of ‘justice’ at the EPO



  7. The Need for Reliable Governance at Freenode

    Why the current and high-profile (albeit somewhat covert) owner of the network, who seems to care about Free software (it has made him very wealthy), should put the whole thing in reliable hands and not attempt to 'monetise' it in any way



  8. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, May 12, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, May 12, 2021



  9. Andrew Lee of Private Internet Access/London Trust Media Increasingly Owns and Controls Freenode (Updatedx2)

    The details about Freenode ownership and control are explained in a resignation letter urging users to move to another network



  10. [Meme] eBPF is Not Microsoft's, But It's Certainly Googlebombed by Microsoft

    eBPF isn't Microsoft's. But sites that work closely with Microsoft keep mentioning that term as if Microsoft created it and champions it (typical tactics).



  11. Links 13/5/2021: OpenSUSE Leap 15.3 on Finer Hardware, AMI Dabbling in Free Firmware

    Links for the day



  12. The EPO's War on Justice and Assault on the Law -- Part 3: The Current Line-up

    The composition of the Enlarged Board for case no. G 1/21



  13. System76’s First Keyboard Packs in Plenty of Surprises

    Putting the genie back in the bottle is hard, and moreover the corrective post from Joey Sneddon may cause a bit of a 'Streisand Effect'



  14. Links 12/5/2021: HAProxy Data Plane API 2.3 and Mousepad 0.5.5

    Links for the day



  15. IBM is Destroying Red Hat, Squeezing Red Hat's Work for Cash, Laying Off Staff, and Asking Staff to Resign

    Layoffs are not a new thing at IBM (hardly so in the past couple of decades or more), but they're oversensitive about the Red Hat agenda



  16. [Meme] Longing for the Original IP Kat...

    It would be nice to see more posts critical of injustice at the EPO, as we've just noted



  17. The EPO's War on Justice and Assault on the Law -- Part 2: Just Another Pro Forma Rubber-Stamping Exercise?

    Half a decade after Benoît Battistelli ‘kidnapped’ and then defamed judges (it started in 2014) António Campinos has done nothing to restore lawfulness at the EPO, as controversial referral case G 1/21 shows; in fact, they recently approved European software patents after pressure from Campinos himself



  18. Why I'm Using Just a Landline and Recalling My Richard Stallman (RMS) Interview on Working Locally or How the Signal Processor in Phones is a De Facto Back Door

    A longer-than-expected rant about what mobile phones have turned into and a look back at (or listen to) what Richard Stallman (RMS) told me way back in 2013



  19. The European Campinos Award

    The campinos (peasants) of Europe shall gather around for another ceremony championing farmers and nurses... or not



  20. Personal Thoughts About the EPO 'Kangaroo Court' Scandal

    Some unscripted and unedited thoughts about the current EPO scandal/series, which shows intervention such as stacking by António Campinos, continuing the tradition of Benoît Battistelli with his attacks on justice itself



  21. Doing Justice by Reporting Injustice

    Europe's second-largest institution, helped by Europe's largest, is engaging in a massive attack on the very concept of the Rule of Law and incredibly enough the so-called 'press' (or 'media') doesn't report on it



  22. IRC Proceedings: Tuesday, May 11, 2021

    IRC logs for Tuesday, May 11, 2021



  23. Links 12/5/2021: New Audacity and Musescore Owner Named, Microsoft May Lose "JEDI" (Trump's 'Bailout Package')

    Links for the day



  24. The EPO's War on Justice and Assault on the Law -- Part 1: Rumours of a Kangaroo Court at EPOnia

    EPO's President Benoît Battistelli viciously attacked judges and slandered judges; António Campinos adopts a more 'soft power' approach, but nevertheless the impact is the same



  25. Bill Gates Exposed

    While publishers like ZDNet worked hard (on Microsoft's budget) to distract us from real scandals many nefarious things were happening; are we witnessing the fall of Gates?



  26. Welcome to ZDNet's 'Linux' Section...

    ZDNet, which defamed RMS to help distract from Bill Gates scandals, is doing what the sponsors (IBM, Microsoft, Linux Foundation) pay for



  27. Europe's Second-Largest Institution, the EPO, is Partly Based in the United States

    The EPO has outsourced its operations, including its 'courts', to the United States; this seems to be the so-called 'New Normal'



  28. You Look for Linux News and Instead It's Microsoft Noise and Openwashing

    Imagine trying to go about doing your own 'business', only to be confronted by paid-for plugs (sponsored) by the people trying to undercut/undermine your business; welcome to "Linux" in 2021



  29. Links 11/5/2021: Maui 1.2.2 and Tor Releases

    Links for the day



  30. The Next Generation of Free Software (or Software Freedom) Activism, Tackling Newer Problems

    New challenges as labour rights and human rights are further eroded, thanks to 'high' 'tech' with its very 'innovative' 'features'


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