11.12.18
Gemini version available ♊︎The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Will Spread the Berkheimer Lie While Legal Certainty Associated With Patents Remains Low and Few Lawsuits Filed
Recent: Number of US Patent Lawsuits Was More Than 50% Higher Half a Decade Ago
Summary: New figures regarding patent litigation in the United States (number of lawsuits) show a decrease by about a tenth in just one year; there’s still no sign of software patents making any kind of return/rebound in the United States, contrary to lies told by the litigation ‘industry’ (those who profit from frivolous lawsuits/threats)
THE U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can grant all the patents it wants; that still does not mean that such patents are necessarily enforceable.
Meanwhile, the European Patent Office (EPO) keeps promoting software patents in Europe — a matter that escalated under António Campinos and a subject we shall cover tomorrow.
“Things will only exacerbate if Iancu (of the litigation ‘industry’) further reduces the standards of examination and squashes Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) little by little.”The more these patent offices diverge/deviate from courts, the worse the presumption of validity will get. They voluntarily reduce the legal certainty associated with their patents (US patents and European Patents).
Earlier today Patent Docs published this ad for FCBA (intentionally misleading name), which is pushing the Berkheimer lie. This was then boosted by Janal Kalis and said:
The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Patent Litigation Committee will be offering a webcast entitled “Litigating § 101 Issues After Berkheimer” on November 14, 2018 from 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm (EST). Irene Yang of Sidley Austin LLP will moderate a panel consisting of Peter Menell, Koret Professor of Law, The University of California, Berkeley School of Law; and Jared Bobrow of Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP. The panel will discuss the legal underpinnings of Berkheimer, the implications of Berkheimer for resolving § 101 issues before trial, and practices for litigating and trying § 101 issues in district court.
So a panel moderated by the litigation ‘industry’ will consist of a law professor and the litigation ‘industry’. Where are the people who actually deal with technology? Conveniently omitted/excluded as usual? Of course.
In talking about “§ 101 issues in district court[s]” they will just prop up the lie that Berkheimer was something revolutionary — a claim that we’ve debunked about half a dozen times before, citing relevant data.
Regardless of what they say about district courts or even the Federal Circuit (which they are not associated with, regardless of their dishonest name), the numbers continue to speak for themselves.
Sanjana Kapila, a Managing IP writer from London, is citing Docket Navigator (whose docket reports suddenly stopped at the end of summer). According to this, patent litigation data/figures in the US show a “8% decrease from the third quarter of 2017,” continuing a trend that has lasted about half a decade, not only because of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice/SCOTUS (2014). To quote Kapila:
Data: US patent case filing in the third quarter continued the 2018 trend of lower levels of litigation. Managing IP reveals the rankings for the first nine months of 2018
Data pulled from Docket Navigator on November 7 shows that 1,035 district court patent litigation cases were filed in the third quarter of the year. This is an 8% decrease from the third quarter of 2017 when 1,123 cases were filed.
The certainty associated with bogus software patents is so low that few even bother filing lawsuits. Things will only exacerbate if Iancu (of the litigation ‘industry’) further reduces the standards of examination and squashes Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs) little by little. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA