01.13.19

Only the Higher Courts — Not Trump’s ‘Poster Child’ — Can Bring Back Software Patents

Posted in America, Patents at 7:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Iancu’s firm had worked for Trump before he got this job

Summary: Software patents are not making a “comeback” as some like to claim; in fact, the latest court cases and notably their outcomes suggest that nothing has changed

OVER THE course of the day today I saw about a dozen articles, all written by patent law firms, regarding the guidance on software patents (or Section 101) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Some were as misleading as this one, but some were more moderate or conservative. Some admit that as long as the courts reject such patents, not much will change.

“Unified Patents has advertised new jobs for attorneys looking to squash bad patents through inter partes reviews (IPRs), so there’s hope for people looking for a career change — basically challenging patents rather than saturating the market with them.”Earlier this weekend Patent Docs advertised this so-called ‘webiner’ with “guidance on how to defend software patents from attacks under those statutory sections…”

No, patents do not come under “attacks”; the patents themselves and the lawsuits are arguably ‘theft’ (monopoly) and attacks, respectively, especially when the patents are known to be questionable/invalid all along. In the interests of time management we’ve promised not to dwell on USPTO affairs this year but instead focus on the European Patent Office (EPO) and non-patent matters. Earlier today I saw several dozens of examples of newly-granted US patents on software — basically no exception to what we saw in past months or years. Watchtroll keeps moaning and sobbing about courts while the site demonises PTAB. This too is the usual. Iancu cannot legally bypass the courts (he might try), so we’ll be paying more attention to patent cases and decisions (courts’ opinions) than to the nonsense that comes out of Iancu’s mouth. Based on the past two weeks (since the year started), there’s no case defying Alice at the Federal Circuit or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents has advertised new jobs for attorneys looking to squash bad patents through inter partes reviews (IPRs), so there’s hope for people looking for a career change — basically challenging patents rather than saturating the market with them.

Unless or until courts change course, Techrights won’t be covering US patent affairs as much as it did last year. This is planned and it’s strategic (a matter of priorities). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

“Uniloc is a Lawsuit Factory”

Posted in Apple, Courtroom, Patents at 6:47 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: Apple is a very secretive company, so it is hard to know what goes on with the patent troll Uniloc

THERE IS RISK that quality of patents granted by the USPTO will decrease because Trump appointed law firms to run the Office (law firms that had worked for him, so there’s an element of nepotism too). Courts aren’t changing though; having said that, patent trolls often rely on the accused not being able to afford going to court, hence a secret settlement over fake (bogus) patents.

Apple is a very opaque company, so it’s hard to know what’s going on in some of the lawsuits against it. The EFF’s post that’s cited a lot by patent people speaks of Uniloc’s lawsuit against Apple as follows:

At EFF, we review court dockets to monitor the conduct of the most active patent trolls. But when court records are redacted or sealed, it can be impossible for EFF and other members of the public to know what is going on. Today we filed a motion to intervene in Uniloc v. Apple seeking public access to key briefing about whether Uniloc should be able to bring the case at all.

Uniloc is one of the most active patent trolls in the world, and filed more than 170 lawsuits in 2018. It is the patent owner that sued Austin Meyer for offering his X-Plane flight simulator on app stores. That suit led to a documentary called The Patent Scam (available on Amazon Prime). Since then, Uniloc has been a big purchaser of patents, and various Uniloc entities have filed hundreds of patent suits.

In 2017, Uniloc filed a wave of patent litigation against Apple and other defendants. In some of those cases, Apple has moved to dismiss on the basis that Uniloc lacks standing. Apple’s motion to dismiss was heavily redacted, but it appears to relate to deals Uniloc has made with Fortress Investment Group LLC. Apple seems to be arguing that Uniloc and Fortress divided rights in the underlying patents in a way that means Uniloc entities no longer had a legal right to sue for infringement.

“Uniloc is a lawsuit factory,” said a reader to us back in November. “From today’s RPX Daily Litigation Alert,” he added:

Litigations

California Central

Max Blu Technologies, LLC v. AVIC UMEDISC (US), Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ESPN, Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hulu, LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

Delaware

Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Inventergy LBS, LLC v. Securus Technologies, Inc.

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Pilot Corporation of America

Symbology Innovations LLC v. Vital Farms, Inc.

XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corporation

Delaware (After Hours)

XMTT, Inc. v. Intel Corporation.

New Jersey

MEDICURE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. GLAND PHARMA LTD.

TELEBRANDS CORP. v. ALTAIR INSTRUMENTS, INC.

Texas Eastern

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC et al v. Google LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. AT&T Services, Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Cardo Systems, Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Terrano, LLC

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hike Ltd. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Hike Ltd. et al

Texas Northern

Ring Protection LLC v. NEC Corporation of America

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry Corporation

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry Corporation

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry Corporation

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Blackberry Corporation

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. LG Electronics USA Inc et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE, Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE, Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE, Inc. et al

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. ZTE, Inc. et al

Texas Southern

Metuchen Pharmaceuticals LLC et al v. Empower Pharmaceuticals LLC et al

Ringers Technologies LLC v. Harmer

Texas Western

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc.

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc.

That’s from one day in November. If Apple cares about society at large, it will reject this ‘NDA culture’ and tell the public what’s going on. Uniloc has already expanded to Europe and it’s a problem that doesn’t seem to be going away fast enough. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend

European Patent Office a Textbook Example of Lawless, Rogue Institutions

Posted in Europe, Patents at 6:11 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Summary: The tyrannical nature of the EPO is still being demonstrated by the sad fate of Patrick Corcoran; technical judges at the EPO are feeling intimidated by nontechnical politicians and bankers

ONCE upon a time some blog called “IP Kat” (before it became more like "IP Watchtroll" a.k.a. "Watchtroll" or a mouthpiece of patent trolls) covered scandals at the European Patent Office (EPO). That coverage increased in frequency around December 2014 when Judge Patrick Corcoran got subjected to a ‘raid’ after illegal surveillance on him. Battistelli’s war on judges had taken a turn for the worse. He attacked patent law or patent justice in Europe — something which he is absolutely not allowed to do and ironically this contributed to the death of the UPC he so desperately lobbies for.

A few days ago we mentioned this comment which said that EPO “room allocation shows that Mr. Corcoran has been assigned a working space in our wonderful and modern building. Which is situated in The Hague.”

“If you go there,” someone later responded (the following day, albeit there’s lag due to moderation, i.e. censorship), “you will see also the Welcome Package still there since 2018…”

“The concept of justice at the EPO is farcical at best. It’s where justice if not judges come to die (their career at least).”But “Phonebook” responded some time on Friday and once it made it past moderation a more detailed explanation appeared: “Rumours have it, that the President would cancel the transfer, but cannot do so as long as Mr Corcoran is registered sick leave (as the systems apparently don’t take any changes when “special leaves” are active) [...] And registering being back can only be done in The Hague. The head of inhuman ressources [Bergot] apparently was able create a catch-22 for this kind of situations…”

Rumours have it that the mental toll was so severe that hospitalisation was needed.

The Office joke is that Battistelli and Bergot (and her husband) still control António Campinos (rather than the other way around). Campinos is indebted to Battistelli for giving him this job and he has just turned his ‘boss’ (who never actually bossed either him or Battistelli) into his lapdog. Dmitry Medvedev would be so proud!

The concept of justice at the EPO is farcical at best. It’s where justice if not judges come to die (their career at least). █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend