12.19.18

Gemini version available ♊︎

Software Patents Are Very Weak in the United States

Posted in America, OIN, Patents at 9:14 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Undoing decades of profoundly misguided policy

Summary: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues along the same path — an encouraging path wherein Section 101 is generally accepted, albeit not by the Director, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) typically approves/affirms Section 101 rejections; failing that, the courts do the job

THE Open Invention Network (OIN), which has just been described as a “patent protection group”, is perhaps just that. It’s protecting software patents from people like us. Our stance on OIN changed some years back because of Alice, which OIN fails to exploit and IBM actively fights against. IBM is still the most influential player in OIN and it’s not interested in the end of software patents; quite the contrary in fact.

Here are Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols’ views on the latest additions or the latest news from OIN, namely or notably Alibaba. He even uses propaganda terms like ‘IP’ — a term which no doubt this publisher is happy to promote. To quote the opening paragraph:

The American and Chinese trade war is near to boiling. The American attempt to extradite Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou has failed; China might be behind the Marriott data breach; and China might’ve caused a massive internet disruption. But one perpetual sore point between the US and China — intellectual property (IP) abuse — is taking a step for the better. Alibaba and its affiliate Ant Financial are joining the Open Invention Network (OIN), the pro-open source and Linux patent-protection group.

This adoption of cross-licensing-type attitudes rather than abolishing software patents (i.e. not PTAB-like methods) or eliminating them one by one at PTAB isn’t a good sign. Why not work towards elimination? It shouldn’t be so hard anymore.

Janal Kalis keeps looking for the relatively rare cases where PTAB reverses a decision to grant or reverses a rejection; there’s an effort to demonstrate a disparity and a sort of ‘controversy’, then alleging that the underlying assessment, usually based on Section 101, is problematic. Some days ago he found out that “PTAB [had] Reversed an Examiner’s [Section] 101 Rejection of Claims for a Navigation System in a Patent Application Owned [sic] by Honeywell: https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2018000027-11-27-2018-1 …”

So a monopoly got assigned as those above the examiner considered it valid based on Section 101. What would courts say? It’s not likely to ever get that far.

It is rather pathetic that Anticipat, an overzealous opponent of PTAB (no longer so vocal either, so one wonders if it’s a failed/failing business), now resorts to nitpicking — namely selecting one of those relatively rare reversals of an examiner’s decision — to make it sound like an encouraging development which merits “hope” (for patent maximalists). These people generally understand that software patents and business method patents are a waste of time and money, especially in courts. To quote:

There has been much energy focused on the flawed nature of the current Alice/Mayo framework for evaluating patent-eligibility. Even the well-intentioned [sic] desires of USPTO director Andrei Iancu’s to move away from this framework has its limits.

In a recent decision, Ex Parte Pasupulati et al, the Board reversed an abstract idea rejection to a claim directed to integrating an API-based mechanism to a merchant’s website without the merchant having to understand the API or having to know how to code in a language specific to the API. The Board rebuffed the Examiner’s position for both steps.

So it’s a similar situation to the above from Kalis, but it is rare. Ankur Parekh asked Kalis: “Do you have an intuitive sense of reversal and affirmance percentages for 101 at PTAB the last couple of months? Thanks.”

“The latest post on Bilski blog reports that examiners have been affirmed in 92% of 101 appeals recently decided by the PTAB,” Kalis responded. “I think the % of 101 reversals peaked last summer.”

This means that only about 1 in 13 would be reversed. That’s very low actually and we used to write about those things quite routinely early in the year and last year. Courts are even stricter than this, but not many cases get that far because it’s expensive and thus financially risky. But what about lower courts? Welcome to the universe where a nontechnical jury sometimes gets to decide on technical matters. In the following recent example the jury ignored the technical PTAB (its ruling that a patent was invalid). Just like that they got to decide on a case with tens of millions of dollars on the line.

A Delaware jury finds Edwards Lifesciences infringed a transcatheter heart valve technology patent, which was ruled invalid by the PTAB earlier this year

A District of Delaware jury has awarded Boston Scientific $35 million against Edwards Lifesciences in a case involving multiple patents related to transcatheter heart valve technology.

The way things stand, however, abstract patents would rarely get past PTAB and result in any ‘damages’ payment.

Brittany Knight and Anthony Sabatelli wrote for Patent Docs a typical kind of article (for that site), insinuating that a law they do not like needs to “evolve” (i.e. get watered down). Patent maximalists, usually trolls and law firms, still moan about the demise of software patents because of 35 U.S.C. § 101; what they keep saying about Berkheimer is rather meaningless because it has not statistically changed much, especially when one takes into account decreased interest in litigation with software patents, seeing the lack of success in such cases.

Knight and Sabatelli start by explaining things as follows:

Software is a generic term to refer to a collection of data or executing code used by a computer to implement arithmetic operations or logical operations. Back in 1936, Allen Turing, in his landmark paper On Computable Numbers proposed the capable use of instructions (i.e., software) to execute functions through his Turing Machine, an early precursor of the general purpose computer[1]. Today the modern computer is instrumental for complex computations, data analytics, high-powered graphing, simulations, and so on. Although, the development and use of software for these computer functions has become mainstream, determining the patent eligibility of software inventions under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been less intuitive.

In the wake of the now famous Mayo and Alice decisions, patent subject eligibility is determined through a 2-step inquiry. The first step asks whether, the patent claim is directed to a natural phenomenon, biological process, or abstract idea. Software is generally categorized as being “abstract” because it does not fulfill the more concrete criteria for being a “thing”: i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Because software claims often fail the first step of the Mayo/Alice inquiry, the inquiry is next directed to the second part, which determines whether the patent claims add “significantly more” to bring them back within the fold of eligibility. However, meeting this second step has proven challenging in the court of law when it comes to determining patent eligibility of modern computational tools.

Back in the very old days (maybe a decade ago) we still wrote a lot of articles about why software patents are something that should never have been patentable in the first place because it’s more like a rendition and hence it’s suitably covered by copyright law, economically too (no need to undergo a registration process).

Staying on Patent Docs, Michael Borella also wrote about SAP America, Inc. v InvestPic, LLC. The moral of the story? Dare sue a rival with software patents and you’ll end up having to compensate your rival for your false accusation and your fake patent (which is now invalid, too):

We wrote about this case six months ago, regarding InvestPic’s appeal to the Federal Circuit over having its patent invalided under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the Northern District of Texas. InvestPic did not get the outcome it was looking for. Here, the case is back in the District Court to consider SAP’s motion for recovery of attorney’s fees. As we will see, InvestPic ended up not only with its patent invalidated, but also owing a large chunk of money to SAP.

SAP was originally granted attorney’s fees in 2017, after the District Court ruled, on the pleadings, that InvestPic’s U.S. Patent No. 6,349,291 was invalid under § 101. As noted above, InvestPic appealed and lost.

[...]

This proceeding, however, was put on hold by the Federal Circuit appeal. Now back in the District Court, an order granting much of what SAP requested was issued on December 4, 2018.

SAP requested a total of $939,306.61, which did not include any time from attorneys and staff that worked less than 10 hours on the case. But this amount included time that SAP’s attorney spent on a petition for covered business method review which was never filed. The District Court declined to award fees for the petition.

Also, the District Court found that the rates charged by SAP’s attorneys (“$745.00 – $1,175.00 per hour for partners to $405.00 – $650.00 per hour for associates”) were excessive. In particular, the majority of the partner’s rates were above the 90th percentile for Texas, and the District Court found no evidence to justify the rates being so high. Accordingly, the District Court reduced all partner rates by 35% and all associate rates by 15%. Based on these adjustments, the total amount actually awarded was $679,420.46.

[...]

To further drive home this point, not even the federal courts have been able to crack the § 101 egg. It is well-known that multiple federal judges have commented on the record that Alice was hard to apply in practice. Judge Wu of the United States District Court for the Central District of California criticized Alice for setting forth an “I know it when I see it” test. Judge Pfaelzer, a colleague of Judge Wu, wrote that the Supreme Court’s patent-eligibility cases “often confuse more than they clarify [and] appear to contradict each other on important issues.” More recently, the Federal Circuit’s Judge Plager, wrote that the post-Alice §101 inquiry “renders it near impossible to know with any certainty whether the invention is or is not patent eligible.” And these are just a few examples of judicial confusion. There are more.

Just a few months ago, the Federal Circuit ruled 2-1 that § 101 jurisprudence was too murky to be used as the basis of an attorney’s fees award. While the facts between that case and this one differ, the law does not.

Looking at another site of software patents proponents, Charles Bieneman comes to grip with the fact that his profession, patent litigation, will become rather hard now that software patents are worthless in the US and typically drain plaintiffs’ pockets. To quote:

Patent claims directed to establishing online chat sessions are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 and the Alice/Mayo test, said Federal Circuit Judge Bryson, sitting in the District of Delaware, in granting a defendant’s motion to dismiss. Epic IP LLC v. Backblaze, Inc., C.A. No. 1:18-141-WCB (D. Del. Nov. 21, 2018).

Remember when law firms advised people to paint algorithms as “GUI” to get software patents and other patents that are abstract? Well, forget it. That too doesn’t work. Bieneman’s blog colleague Peter Keros wrote about a patent on “remotely monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment”:

Patent claims directed to a remote user interface displaying a plurality graphical user interfaces (GUIs) were held not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Valmont Industries, Inc. v. Lindsay Corporation, No. 15-42-LPS (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2018). The Court found that the claims of U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,357 were directed to the abstract idea of “remotely monitoring and controlling irrigation equipment” without an inventive concept, granting a motion to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6).

Here’s Bieneman on 35 U.S.C. § 112:

Claims in a patent directed to medical diagnostics were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) and Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosign Instruments, Inc. (S. Ct. 2014), said a court in granting summary judgment of invalidity. Lecat’s Ventriloscope v. MT Tool and Manufacturing, No. 1-16-cv-05298 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2018).

Last but not least, Bieneman writes about 35 U.S.C. § 112 and “a patent examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patent-eligibility”. It’s abundantly clear that software patents are very weak in US litigation (courts). To quote:

The Federal’s circuit has affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in turn affirming a patent examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for lack of patent-eligibility, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for lack of written description and indefiniteness, of a product-by-process claim directed to “a resource planning forecast product.” In re Downing, No. 2018-1795 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2018) (non-presidential).

[...]

Finally, and probably of absolutely no solace to the applicant, the court agreed that the recitation of “the end user” was not indefinite for lack of antecedent basis. Even though the term “the end user” was introduced “without an antecedent basis,” the claim only referenced one and user and it was clear who the end user would be. Therefore, the lack of antecedent basis for this term did not render the claim indefinite.

Even district courts, such as the Northern District of California’s court in this particular case, learned to say “no” to abstract, bogus, fake patents or software patents. Bieneman’s blog colleague Nathan Smith wrote about patent claims on “analyzing and automatically categorizing digital images”:

The Northern District of California recently granted a motion to dismiss based on lack of patent-eligible subject matter, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and the Alice/Mayo test, in claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,350,928, directed to “a system and method for the automatic analysis and categorization of images in an electronic imaging device.” Secure Cam, LLC v. Tend Insights, Inc., No. CV 18-02750-EJD (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018). The claims of the ‘928 patent were ineligible because, like In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims were directed to the abstract idea of analyzing and automatically categorizing digital images. Further, like TLI, the claims include physical components, such as a digital camera, “but the physical components ‘merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea.’”

Last but not least, over at Watchtroll Robert Levy weighed in on licensing (fancier term for “paying for”) bogus patents, i.e. patents that are not likely to withstand a challenge in a court, e.g. because of 35 U.S.C. § 101/Alice. Levy cites the Alphacap case (covered here at the time):

All too often, the prospective licensee/purported infringer usually doesn’t begin its efforts to acquire the patent(s) until after making disparaging statements about them during negotiations. As an example, consider the time line discussed in the case of Gust, Inc. v. Alphacap Ventures, LLC, No. 2017-2414 (Fed. Cir. September 28, 2018) in which Alphacap Ventures, the purported infringer, demanded re-assignment of the patent owner’s patents as part of a settlement offer, but only after arguing for the invalidity of such patents under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Eventually a lot of cases come down to this. The underlying patents don’t pass muster and are therefore not worth pursuing in the first place. In the coming days if not weeks we’ll give some more examples like these. It has gotten a tad tiring/dull because the outcomes are mostly the same.

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. Links 5/12/2021: Touchpad Gestures in XWayland

    Links for the day



  2. Society Needs to Take Back Computing, Data, and Networks

    Why GemText needs to become 'the new HTML' (but remain very simple) in order for cyberspace to be taken away from state-connected and military-funded corporations that spy on people and abuse society at large



  3. [Meme] Meanwhile in Austria...

    With lobbyists-led leadership one might be led to believe that a treaty strictly requiring ratification by the UK is somehow feasible (even if technically and legally it's moot already)



  4. The EPO's Web Site is a Parade of Endless Lies and Celebration of Gross Violations of the Law

    The EPO's noise site (formerly it had a "news" section, but it has not been honest for about a decade) is a torrent of lies, cover-up, and promotion of crimes; maybe the lies are obvious for everybody to see (at least EPO insiders), but nevertheless a rebuttal seems necessary



  5. The Letter EPO Management Does Not Want Applicants to See (or Respond to)

    A letter from the Munich Staff Committee at the EPO highlights the worrying extent of neglect of patent quality under Benoît Battistelli and António Campinos; the management of the EPO did not even bother replying to that letter (instead it was busy outsourcing the EPO to Microsoft)



  6. IRC Proceedings: Saturday, December 04, 2021

    IRC logs for Saturday, December 04, 2021



  7. EPO-Bribed IAM 'Media' Has Praised Quality, Which Even EPO Staff (Examiners) Does Not Praise

    It's easy to see something is terribly wrong when the people who do the actual work do not agree with the media's praise of their work (a praise motivated by a nefarious, alternate agenda)



  8. Tux Machines is 17.5 Years Old Today

    Tux Machines -- our 'sister site' for GNU/Linux news -- started in 2004. We're soon entering 2022.



  9. Approaching 100

    We'll soon have 100 files in Git; if that matters at all...



  10. Improving Gemini by Posting IRC Logs (and Scrollback) as GemText

    Our adoption of Gemini and of GemText increases; with nearly 100,000 page requests in the first 3 days of Decembe (over gemini://) it’s clear that the growing potential of the protocol is realised, hence the rapid growth too; Gemini is great for self-hosting, which is in turn essential when publishing suppressed and controversial information (subject to censorship through blackmail and other ‘creative’ means)



  11. Links 4/12/2021: IPFire 2.27 Core Update 162 and Genode OS Framework 21.11

    Links for the day



  12. Links 4/12/2021: Gedit Plans and More

    Links for the day



  13. Links 4/12/2021: Turnip Becomes Vulkan 1.1 Conformant

    Links for the day



  14. IRC Proceedings: Friday, December 03, 2021

    IRC logs for Friday, December 03, 2021



  15. Links 4/12/2021: EndeavourOS Atlantis, Krita 5.0.0 Beta 5, Istio 1.11.5, and Wine 6.23; International Day Against DRM (IDAD) on December 10th

    Links for the day



  16. Another Gemini Milestone: 1,500 Active Capsules

    This page from Balázs Botond plots a graph, based on these statistics that now (as of minutes ago) say: “We successfully connected recently to 1500 of them.” Less than a fortnight ago more than 1,800 capsules overall were registered by Lupa, almost quadrupling in a single year



  17. [Meme] António Campinos and Socialist Posturing

    Staff of the EPO isn’t as gullible as António Campinos needs it to be



  18. António Campinos as EPO President is Considered Worse Than Benoît Battistelli (in Some Regards) After 3.5 Years in Europe's Second-Largest Institution

    The EPO's demise at the hands of people who don't understand patents and don't care what the EPO exists for is a real crisis which European media is unwilling to even speak about; today we share some internal publications and comment on them



  19. Media Coverage for Sale

    Today we're highlighting a couple of new examples (there are many other examples which can be found any day of the year) demonstrating that the World Wide Web is like a corporate spamfarm in "news" clothing



  20. Links 3/12/2021: GNU Poke 1.4 and KDDockWidgets 1.5.0

    Links for the day



  21. IRC Proceedings: Thursday, December 02, 2021

    IRC logs for Thursday, December 02, 2021



  22. Links 3/12/2021: Nitrux 1.7.1 and Xen 4.16 Released

    Links for the day



  23. Links 2/12/2021: OpenSUSE Leap 15.4 Alpha, Qt Creator 6

    Links for the day



  24. The EPO's “Gender Awareness Report”

    There’s a new document with remarks by the EPO’s staff representatives and it concerns opportunities for women at the EPO — a longstanding issue



  25. IRC Proceedings: Wednesday, December 01, 2021

    IRC logs for Wednesday, December 01, 2021



  26. EPO Staff Committee Compares the Tactics of António Campinos to Benoît Battistelli's

    The Central Staff Committee (CSC) of the EPO talks about EPO President António Campinos, arguing that “he seems to subscribe to the Manichean view, introduced by Mr Battistelli…”



  27. Prof. Thomas Jaeger in GRUR: Unified Patent Court (UPC) “Incompatible With EU Law“

    The truth remains unquestionable and the law remains unchanged; Team UPC is living in another universe, unable to accept that what it is scheming will inevitably face high-level legal challenges (shall that become necessary) and it will lose because the facts are all still the same



  28. Links 1/12/2021: LibrePlanet CFS Extended to December 15th and DB Comparer for PostgreSQL Reaches 5.0

    Links for the day



  29. EPO Cannot and Will Not Self-Regulate

    The term financialisation helps describe some of the activities of the EPO in recent years; see Wikipedia on financialisation below



  30. [Meme] Germany's Licence to Break the Law

    Remember that the young Campinos asked dad for his immunity after he had gotten drunk and crashed the car; maybe the EPO should stop giving diplomatic immunity to people, seeing what criminals (e.g. Benoît Battistelli) this attracts; the German government is destroying its image (and the EU’s) by fostering such corruption, wrongly believing that it’s worth it because of Eurozone domination for patents/litigation


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