Reference: Gonzalo P. Curiel

Summary: The attacks on judges at PTAB seem to be culminating again, perhaps mere weeks before the US Supreme Court delivers a decision regarding PTAB's patent review process (IPRs)

THE EPO became rather notorious for attacking judges, ignoring judges, and putting a politician (Battistelli) in the position of judge, jury and executioner. This, among other reasons, is why the UPC is dead. Watchtroll of course lobbies a lot for the UPC, probably more than anyone else in the US. UPC is basically a guarantee of sham 'justice', like court proceedings in a language that the defendant does not even understand.

"UPC is basically a guarantee of sham 'justice', like court proceedings in a language that the defendant does not even understand."The USPTO is now (after AIA) aided by judges, who assist examiners in the same way the appeal boards in the EPO help examiners. There's internal scrutiny in the form of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); it helps stop likely invalid patents before they reach a court, incurring huge costs to both plaintiff and defendant (lawyers obviously love such court battles, as they profit from these quite a lot for months if not years, hence they hate PTAB).

Watch this angry attorney blasting PTAB, saying that "PTAB shoots down IBM patent disingenuously under [Section] 101..."

Why disingenuously? This is what Section 101 is for (more on that in our next post). As he himself says and quotes, "algorithm not a technological improvement because "Appellants discovered a mathematical algorithm that uses computer memory in a conventional manner, but uses a relatively smaller amount of it." https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017008135-03-07-2018-1 …"

"There's internal scrutiny in the form of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); it helps stop likely invalid patents before they reach a court, incurring huge costs to both plaintiff and defendant..."Yes, "mathematical algorithm" is abstract and thus invalid under Section 101. What's disingenuous about that? He fired off another ALL CAPS rant, quoting: "Further, claims involving data collection, analysis, and display are directed to an abstract idea." https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2016003283-02-28-2018-1 …"

That makes perfect sense, yet he's furious that -- according to him -- "PTAB continues to distort caselaw" (hardly so! In fact, caselaw comes primarily from CAFC and SCOTUS, not PTAB).

Anyway, these sorts of rants have become so routinary and laughable. It's like a ritual, it's customary among patent maximalists, who keep reaffirming each others' beliefs if not desire to believe that PTAB is some sort of rogue court or kangaroo court or whatever. I recently quit following these people because I worried about their mental state. The ALL CAPS are becoming ever more frequent. We recently saw Professor Crouch making ridiculous cartoons of judges (cartoons that are also racist, potentially pertaining to a judge's Mexican heritage/ancestry). We're appalled and also somewhat surprised that even Crouch could stoop this low. His anti-PTAB posts have been rather one-sided and sometimes rude over the past year. Remember that this is a teacher and a scholar, so to behave like some sort of lobbyist is inadequate and unprofessional. Who does he work for? A university or patent maximalists?

"I recently quit following these people because I worried about their mental state. The ALL CAPS are becoming ever more frequent. We recently saw Professor Crouch making ridiculous cartoons of judges (cartoons that are also racist, potentially pertaining to a judge's Mexican heritage/ancestry)."PTAB is not a rogue court; it's not a kangaroo court, either. It's nothing like FISA/FISC for example. Look at the rejection/acceptance rates and bear in mind petitions target some of the worst of patents. Only a few days ago a press release was issued to say that "[t]he US Patent Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently ruled to uphold the validity of WaveForm Technologies Inc. patents in the emerging field of continuous glucose monitoring" (yes, PTAB sometimes defends patents too).

Here is another new example from Docket Navigator. PTAB may soon thwart another act of patent aggression, this time in Carlson Pet Products, Inc. v North States Industries, Inc.

There's a unique twist in this one case (hence Docket Navigator singled it out):

The court granted defendant's motion to stay pending its requests for ex parte reexamination and rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant was engaging in gamesmanship by not seeking inter partes review.

PTAB generally has very competent, technical people, who aren't only jurors but also jacks of many trades (like examiners). The same goes for judges at the EPO's Boards of Appeals. The Chief Judge at PTAB is himself a technical person. He routinely responds to bogus allegations against PTAB and himself, even as recently as a month ago.

Well, adding to a new/recent batch of judge-bashing attacks on PTAB, Watchtroll resumes its judge-bashing tirades. He has just published "PTAB Judges Shockingly Inexperienced Compared to District Court Judges" (improper comparison/s for a plethora of reasons).

"We certainly hope that judges at the USPTO (and the USPTO in general, examiners included) understand what they're dealing with here."This is far from the first time Gene Quinn attacks the intelligence of judges. Perhaps realising it would be used against him and the site, he published this response from PTAB's Chief Judge a couple of days later. "The USPTO has provided us with a comment from Chief Judge David Ruschke," Watchtroll wrote after he had once again attacked judges. Remember that it was mostly Watchtroll who repeatedly attacked the USPTO's Director, Michelle Lee. It even propped up truly ridiculous conspiracy theories about her.

We certainly hope that judges at the USPTO (and the USPTO in general, examiners included) understand what they're dealing with here. It's a little mind in an oversized body with an ego no smaller than that of Donald Trump. And if found to be wrong, smearing the judges is always an option on the menu. ⬆