EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

07.19.18

Some US Patents’ Quality is So Low That There’s a Garden Clearance/Fire Sale

Posted in America, Patents at 12:35 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Allied Security Trust (AST) is trying to offload many of them, the deadline being tomorrow

Australia and America

Summary: Rather than shoot worthless patents into orbit where they belong the Allied Security Trust (AST), collector of dubious patents [1, 2], will try to sell them to gullible opportunists and patent trolls (even if the said patents would likely perish in courts)

THE USPTO spent decades granting a lot of poor-quality patents (like those the EPO nowadays grants, due to Battistelli’s policies). Many of these patents will never be tested in courts (the vast majority will have expired without any court action), so it will be hard to tell just what proportion of these patents is bunk. There are no reliable estimates of that.

“Many of these patents will never be tested in courts (the vast majority will have expired without any court action), so it will be hard to tell just what proportion of these patents is bunk.”Many companies sell their patents in bulk, usually to patent trolls. Some get sold because the patents are about to expire, whereas others are sold due to a company’s bankruptcy. The term “fire sale” comes to mind. As Wikipedia defines it: “A fire sale is the sale of goods at extremely discounted prices, typically when the seller faces bankruptcy. The term originated in reference to the sale of goods at a heavy discount due to fire damage. A fire sale may or may not be a closeout, the final sale of goods to zero inventory. Fire sales are said to occur in the financial markets when bidders who value assets highly are prevented from bidding on them, depressing the average selling price below what it otherwise would be. This lowering of the price can cause even further issues because it may be inaccurately perceived as signaling negative information.”

“Many companies sell their patents in bulk, usually to patent trolls.”The abundance of US patents isn’t something to necessarily be celebrated; what really matters is how strict or lenient patent examination is; when it comes to patents, journalism or ‘articles’ these days are just a ‘shopping list’ of patents, e.g. this from RichmondBizSense: “Local patents for 7.18.18″ (yesterday)

Or this one from patent propaganda sites like “Dallas Innovates”/“Dallas Invents” series: “Dallas Invents: 97 Patents Granted for Week of July 10″ (this is the latest of many)

“Worthless patents are currently being sold by a parasitic entity, AST, using buzzwords like “Artificial Intelligence” and “Internet of Things” (typically software patents).”It’s nothing but a copy-paste job; they make no effort to assess or explain these patents.

Worthless patents are currently being sold by a parasitic entity, AST, using buzzwords like “Artificial Intelligence” and “Internet of Things” (typically software patents). Bring in the garbage trucks. They’ve just advertised these [1, 2] as follows:

Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning
Augmented Reality / Virtual Reality
Automotive / Transportation Services
Blockchain
Internet of Things / Connected Devices
Smart Home
Software / Web Services
Wireless

The deadline is tomorrow. How many patent trolls will pick up patents in there? How many can be voided by Section 101?

Watchtroll’s guest writer, Alex Poltorak, wrote on July 12th about US patent number 10 million, which is likely bunk/bogus as per Section 101. To quote:

Last month, the U.S. Patent Office issued patent number 10,000,000. This historic occasion calls for rethinking our patent system and the future of American innovation.

In the past, such an event would have been a cause for celebration, a testimony to our ingenuity. Back then, patents were valuable assets, protecting and incentivizing innovation. A valid patent gave its owner the right to stop infringers in their tracks. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case.

Yes, not because of “bad courts” but because of bad patents — patents that should never have been granted, right? That silly celebration of 10 million patents could also be seen in Sioux Falls Argus Leader two days ago, courtesy of “Jeffrey Proehl [who] is a registered patent attorney with Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith P.C. in Sioux Falls.” Obviously he’s just marketing himself. It’s not really journalism, it’s PR.

“How many patent trolls will pick up patents in there? How many can be voided by Section 101?”Thankfully, software patents and other abstract patents have lost their ‘teeth; it’s like they are zombies or just “dead” (the term used by patent maximalists) because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) belatedly applies the law through inter partes reviews (IPRs). Here’s a new example of it, just published by Law 360:

PTAB Nixes 2 Customer Service Software Patents

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has struck down two patents covering customer service software, finding that a California-based company’s patents are invalid as obvious.

In two final written decisions issued Monday, the PTAB ruled that tech company LivePerson Inc. had shown that 17 claims across two patents owned by rival [24]7.ai. Inc., formerly known as 24/7 Customer Inc., are both rendered obvious by a combination of earlier inventions.

Might this be a cautionary tale for those who still pursue software patents because the patent maximalists ‘pull a Berkheimer‘ or speak of the fictitious “Berkheimer Effect”? As we’ve shown here many times before, Berkheimer has not had a profound effect. Iancu the Trump appointee attempted to use it to weaken PTAB, but virtually nothing has changed. Denver Business Journal has just reported that he spoke in Denver, but other than that he has been keeping a really low profile lately. Ellie Mertens, a writer for the patent maximalists’ media, says that Berkheimer did have an effect, but her article is behind a paywall, so we’re unable to see what source or data she’s citing. The summary says:

New data reveals that findings of invalidity and the success of 101-based motions to dismiss have dropped since Berkheimer, the most important subject matter eligibility case of 2018

It’s only “the most important” in the eyes of patent maximalists who attempted to exploit it for their personal agenda (as did Iancu). Unless we actually see some hard data to support the above hypothesis, we’ll just continue to assume that Alice, together with TC Heartland and Oil States (also this year; far more important than Berkheimer), mean that software patents are bunk, courts that tolerate such patents are less accessible, and PTAB is free to invalidate them, based on the latter two decisions from SCOTUS, respectively. Berkheimer is just one among many Federal Circuit decisions.

When Amplifying the Message of ‘Global Innovation Index 2018′ IP Watch Sounds Like WIPO and IP Watchdog (Watchtroll)

Posted in America, Deception, Patents at 11:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“The only patent that is valid is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on.”

Supreme Court Justice Jackson

Summary: In addition to senatorial efforts and misleading debates about patents, we now contend with something called “Global Innovation Index 2018,” whose purpose appears to be similar to the debunked Chamber of Commerce's rankings (quantifying everything in terms of patents)

THE networks of patent maximalism are more or less visible. There are particular institutions in place, particular publishers that boost their signal, and events that are organised by both. Think of blogs like Patently-O and sites like IAM, Managing IP etc.

“We understand that it’s important to report what’s happening, but unless things are put in context and suitably framed or explained, readers might not know who’s behind what claims and what the motivations are (typically financial).”One blog that always goes further than most is Watchtroll, where judge-bashing is routine and misinformation has become mundane. Just two days ago Watchtroll was conflating “Innovation and Patenting” yet again, alluding to the USPTO because it’s granting millions of utterly rubbish patents. IP Watch (not to be mistaken for IP Watchdog, a.k.a. Watchtroll) gives a voice to patent extremists who “lauded the rise of China as a model” when it comes to patent maximalism. This then expanded to EPO praise, also based on such unbridled patent maximalism.

Global Innovation Index 2018, mentioned here before in passing, gets cited in “Europe’s Innovation Renaissance, China’s ‘Astonishing’ Rise: Global Innovation Index 2018″; Why does IP Watch (claiming to be a watcher/critic of such stuff) prop up this WIPO-oriented tosh whose clear intention/purpose is to shame nations into more overzealous patent policies? Like IP Kat did just earlier this week (yesterday)

“USIJ is one among many front groups which smack of AstroTurfing; it claims to be for the very thing it is harming.”We understand that it’s important to report what’s happening, but unless things are put in context and suitably framed or explained, readers might not know who’s behind what claims and what the motivations are (typically financial). Watchtroll has also just promoted the misguided and dangerous bill from Thomas Massie [1, 2]. It’s an anti-PTAB move, i.e. an effort to lower US patent quality. Yesterday, Josh Landau (CCIA) responded more formally to similar attempts, having previously composed a long blog post on the subject after USIJ had lied. USIJ is one among many front groups which smack of AstroTurfing; it claims to be for the very thing it is harming. We shall keep an eye on upcoming coverage, knowing there will be a lot more deception in networks of patent maximalism.

Erosion of Patent Justice in Europe With Kangaroo Courts and Low-Quality European Patents

Posted in Europe, Patents at 11:07 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

And they want to start the UPC?!

Animal Office

Fair trial

Summary: The problematic combination of plaintiff-friendly courts (favouring the accuser, just like in Eastern Texas) and low-quality patents that should never have been granted

AS WE noted here the other day, UK-IPO patent filings fell. Only patent maximalists would sob over this because it might simply mean that patent quality improved and besides, as Managing IP has just pointed out, trade marks registrations are soaring, highlighting a potential change in strategy. The latter aspect too was pointed out by us two days ago. To quote:

A report released by the Intellectual Property Office details trends in patent, trade mark and design filing between 1995 and 2017

Patent quality matters a lot. It matters most. Without it, embargoes might be unjustly imposed, e.g. by the ITC (UPCA makes provisions for equally if not more draconian measures). What ever happened to “innocent until/unless proven guilty”?

“Patent quality matters a lot.”Earlier this week we mentioned a lawsuit involving European Patent 1,139,562, which doesn’t sound particularly sophisticated. As WIPR has just put it, “Motorola announced yesterday, July 17, that the court determined that China-based Hytera is infringing Motorola’s European patent 1,139,562, which covers technology that improves the audio performance in two-way handheld radios and car radios.”

Hytera has called it “nuisance litigations” [1, 2] and “software” is being mentioned:

Radio manufacturer Hytera has filed a petition at the US International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting review of a ruling issued by the body on 3 July which upheld rival Motorola Solution’s complaint of patent infringement against the company.

In the complaint, Motorola alleged that Hytera is unlawfully importing and selling two-way radio equipment and systems, and related software and components that infringe four of Motorola Solutions’ patents.

Let this be a cautionary tale about hastily-granted European Patents and hastily-judging agencies like ITC, which months ago arrogantly disregarded the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) decision in an inter partes review (IPR) against Cisco.

“What ever happened to “innocent until/unless proven guilty”?”Do we want this kind of thing in Europe? Shooting first (with questionable patents), asking questions later? Raids, confiscations and embargoes before justice begins (or is concluded)? Kangaroo courts like Battistelli’s? Which call those who speak out against corruption “mafia”? Projection tactics?

Mafia caricature

Mafia Tactics in Team UPC and Battistelli’s Circle

Posted in Europe, Patents at 10:35 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Battistelli is probably vacationing in Corsica where he came from (and where his name is associated with the Mafia)

The EPO mafia
Image source

Summary: Mafia-like behaviour at the EPO and the team responsible for the Unified Patent Court (UPC); appointments of loyal friends and family members have become common (nepotism and exchange of favours), as have threats made towards critics, authorities, and the press

LAST night we explained yet again why UPC is dead (or dying). Team UPC will never admit this because it still believes in miracles or in corrupt officials, who are actually not a miracle but a fact of life.

“Team UPC will never admit this because it still believes in miracles or in corrupt officials, who are actually not a miracle but a fact of life.”An article by J A Kemp (a law firm) has just been published to deal with this subject. So was a paywalled article from IAM’s network and another copy of the nonsense from Hogan Lovells. They keep paying to spread this. They won’t want to say so publicly, but the UPC is going nowhere; they just waste their money reposting this crap, hoping perhaps that it can still occasionally attract some business (e.g. consultation about ‘unitary’ patents). Hogan Lovells is working with Managing IP (UPC booster) on this self-serving promotional event right now. Pure marketing!

“They won’t want to say so publicly, but the UPC is going nowhere…”Do not expect anything ‘unitary’ to kick off any time soon; it’s permanently stopped by abuses at the EPO among many other things, such as constitutional problems.

On June 21st Cohausz & Florack’s Gottfried Schüll wrote about the EPO’s attacks on judges. It’s citing Cicero and we overlooked this at the time. To quote a portion:

In an interview with C&F, Prof. Dr. Siegfried Broß, a former judge at the Federal Constitutional Court, was critical of the European Patent Office (EPO) pointing out that major democratic constitutional deficits and human rights have occurred there. An recent article from the debate magazine Cicero published in March 2018 supports and underscores the expert’s statement. The article looks at the consequences of international organizations having legal immunity and lists various cases of arbitrary actions and bullying. The author, Petra Sorge, describes in particular instances of misconduct ate the EPO. Among these is the case where a judge who worked for the EPO Board of Appeal for years fell under suspicion in December 2014 of having leaked internal information and having slandered top personnel at the Office. According to Cicero’s research, the Investigative Unit of the EPO, an intelligence-gathering bod, secretly monitored the judge’s e-mails and PCs and even included uninvolved persons. According to Sorge, the EPO’s trace analysis concluded that “numerous e-mails to State officials, Government leaders, journalists or the European Parliament” had been written by the employee, apparently warning of “high-level corruption” and “nepotism”, and a “Balkan affair” involving Battistelli (the still acting EPO president) and Vice President Topic”. The employee denied being the author of the mails – but was nevertheless ordered by Battistelli to be suspended on grounds of defamation. The judges of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, who declared the orders for dismissal inadmissible, were subjected, according to the research, to massive pressure from Battistelli and threatened with disciplinary measures. “This undermines the basic principle of court independence”, the article quotes from the June 2016 decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The Cicero author summarizes it as follows: “The drama is being played out on a stage without spotlights. A place outside the law, because the immunity of the supranational EPO circumvents any judicial supervision or control”.

[...]

Cicero author Petra Sorge describes other disturbing events at the EPO in her article. It becomes clear that even the best research cannot reveal the whole truth in detail. What is certain, however, is that there have been and continue to be enormous distortions at the EPO. The dramatic effects, especially on a human level, put the globally outstanding image of an organization employing almost 7,000 people at risk.

The EPO generally does not want any press coverage like this. It’s actively threatening those who write about EPO corruption, knowing perhaps that courts (like the German FCC) might take note and react. The EPO’s management may be above the law, but it cannot force the initiation of UPC. Only national Parliaments and the European Parliament can. Will they? Doesn’t look like it.

“The EPO generally does not want any press coverage like this. It’s actively threatening those who write about EPO corruption, knowing perhaps that courts (like the German FCC) might take note and react.”Battistelli has done everything within his power, including gross violations of the law, and left his friend António Campinos in charge. Moreover, Battistelli hired PR firms, paid a bunch of publishers and corrupted academics worldwide for UPC propaganda.

Mishcon de Reya, the thuggish law firm that corrupt Battistelli hired at the expense of the EPO to bully me, now advances the UPC agenda (see this new article by David Rose and Nina O’Sullivan).

“Mishcon de Reya, the thuggish law firm that corrupt Battistelli hired at the expense of the EPO to bully me, now advances the UPC agenda…”Each time the EPO hired a law firm to threaten me (it tried several) it later turned out that the legal team/firm had a stake in the UPC. In other words, those firms had personal interests in silencing me, not just the client’s interests. One of those who repeatedly threatened me was called “Capone” (his real surname). They’re acting like some kind of mafia, yet it’s corrupt Battistelli having the audacity to call staff representatives (whom he defames and attacks) “mafia”.

Also spotted this morning was this Lexology piece from Shrey Pathak, Sanam Habib and Leythem A. Wall (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP). It’s a firm which sponsors the patent trolls’ lobby (also sponsored by the EPO for UPC lobbying). Here is what they said:

The document also re-affirms the UK’s intention to remain part of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent system after the UK leaves the European Union (EU), and to “work with other contracting states to make sure the Unified Patent Court Agreement can continue on a firm legal basis”.

It does not speak of “intention” but about exploring the prospect, having already ruled that out.

“What we generally find is that not only Team Battistelli acts like a mafia; Team UPC does too.”What we generally find interesting in the whole thing is the degree of coordination among Team Battistelli and Team UPC, which was even hired by Battistelli to SLAPP me, based on thin or invalid legal grounds. What we generally find is that not only Team Battistelli acts like a mafia; Team UPC does too.

Australia Says No to Software Patents

Posted in Australia, Law, Patents at 9:24 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Australian flag

Summary: Rokt is now fighting the Australian patent office over its decision to reject software patents; Shelston IP, an Australian patent law firm (originally from Melbourne), already meddles a great deal in such policies/decisions, hoping to overturn them

LEAVING aside the EPO and USPTO, two of the world’s largest English-speaking patent offices, there has been some news from Australia, where IP Australia (the Australian patent office) told stakeholders that software isn’t really patent-eligible anymore. We’ve seen several articles about this lately (we mentioned some a week ago) and Lawyerly is the latest to spread the news and shed light on it. “Rokt’s software innovative but not patentable, IP Australia tells court” is the headline. Here’s the key part: “An invention that simply puts “a business method or scheme into a computer” is not patentable, the Commissioner of Patents told a court Wednesday on the first day of a highly anticipated trial over a rejected software patent application by marketing tech startup Rokt.”

“This was achieved in the face of great pressure and constant lobbying from law firms.”Fantastic! Well done, Australia!

This was achieved in the face of great pressure and constant lobbying from law firms. We wrote about it dozens of times over the years and named some of the culprits. In Australia we’ve seen Shelston IP quite a lot recently, attacking the policy and smearing officials for doing the right thing. Shelston IP went further than this and attempted the same thing in New Zealand, where software patents have never been allowed.

Earlier this week we saw Shelston IP rearing its ugly head again in Mondaq and in Lexology (we presume paid placements). Shelston IP (Shelston IP Pty Ltd being its full name), the loudest bunch of lobbyists for software patents down under (Australia and New Zealand), are clearly still meddling in New Zealand’s policies (but they’re Australian!). They’re targeting the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ). Here’s what they wrote:

As seasoned patent scribes, who have between us covered almost everything of significance coming out of New Zealand over the past 15 years, the manner in which a recent article resonated was somewhat unexpected. The article didn’t cover the new Patents Act 2013, poisonous divisionals, the TPP, or even Eminem supposedly suing the NZ Government for copyright infringement – rather, it related to the proposed “Advancement” patent. On reflection, recent goings-on in Australia regarding the will they/won’t they nature of the “Innovation” patent cull probably served to bring the notion of Australasian second-tier patents more into the global IP focus than it might otherwise be. Nonetheless, given that we’ve fielded a few recent questions of the “what’s happening?” variety, this seems like an opportune time for a quick update.

[...]

Pre-history of the Advancement Patents Bill

New Zealand’s new Patents Act 2013 took effect from 13 September 2014. Any complete application filed in the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ) following commencement of the new legislation is subject to patentability standards substantially aligned with international norms. Such standards include examination for inventive step and represent a perceptible increase with respect to those prescribed under the outgoing Patents Act 1953, under which a second-tier patents regime was never needed.

Why the impression that New Zealand never “needed” a second-tier patents regime?

Under the outgoing Patents Act 1953, inventive step was not examined, which in effect, meant that one could often obtain a New Zealand standard (20 year) patent for the same “low level” invention that if pursued before the Australian Patent Office may only have been worthy of an Innovation (8 year) patent. With the advent of the Patents Act 2013, this was no longer true. Indeed, the balance had been effectively reversed.

[...]

Under New Zealand’s 1953 Act, one could essentially take an invention/innovation worthy only of an Australian Innovation patent (8-year term) and use it to obtain a New Zealand standard patent (20 year term); this facility has been removed with the advent of the Patents Act 2013. However, in so doing, a New Zealand patent applicant having only a low-level invention is left with no fallback position, for there is currently no second-tier patent system.

Whereas the legislative space for a New Zealand second-tier patent system and the economic drivers for its adoption have been well known and publicised, Dr Parmar now provides a political impetus that had previously been lacking.

As we wrote earlier this summer, these so-called ‘free’ ‘trade’ ‘agreements’ are being used to shoehorn law changes that would harm the general public for multinational corporations’ gain. We definitely need to watch out for the possibility that they’ll pull something off in the same sense (and means) Team UPC strives to in Europe. The above too uses the term “unitary” and it’s not a coincidence.

07.18.18

IAM is Pushing SEPs/FRAND Agenda for Patent Trolls and Monopolists That Fund IAM

Posted in Deception, Patents, RAND at 6:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Sponsored by Microsoft-connected patent trolls such as Finjan, who also just ‘happen’ to be speakers at this upcoming event

Finjan speaker

Summary: The front group of patent trolls, IAM, sets up an echo chamber-type event, preceded by all the usual pro-FRAND propaganda

PATENTS are OK as long as they don’t obstruct access to a market. It should be possible to work around them one way or another, otherwise the USPTO becomes merely a monopoly protector or protectionism agency. If patents are about innovation, one must keep this in mind.

“Rokt’s software patent to take centre stage in high-stakes hearing,” said this new headline. “Motorola Solutions Wins Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Hytera Mobilfunk GmbH Resulting in Injunction and Recall,” said another. In one case we see software patents and in the latter an embargo. Is the public well served by these? Probably not. How about this (almost) week-old report stating that a “federal appeals court on Thursday declined to reconsider a recent decision reinstating a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc.”

The patent in question is very… questionable. So are many of IBM’s patents, which are simply software patents asserted in bulk (to make legal challenges a lot more expensive). We wrote about that yesterday and earlier today Richard Lloyd from the patent trolls’ lobby fired the headline “IBM’s infringement suit against Groupon shows it’s still a licensing heavyweight” (celebrating extortion). This malicious lobby, only about a month after corrupt Battistelli had given a keynote speech at its US think tank-type event, today announced that a lobbyist, Makan Delrahim, will keynote its extortion event (“patent licensing event”). To quote:

Makan Delrahim, the assistant attorney general for the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice, has been comfirmed as the keynote speaker at Patent Licensing 2018, IAM’s annual event focusing on the key issues affecting licensees and licensors, and their dealmaking strategies, in the US and beyond.

Suffice to say, the event will be an(other) echo chamber for SEPs/FRAND proponents, who also fund IAM and this event. Delrahim, being a lobbyist, probably won’t feel too uncomfortable in such a setting.

Going back to Richard Lloyd, who is fronting for patent trolls and patent lawyers, he has this update on standard-essential patents (SEPs). It’s about Ericsson, which not only acts like a patent troll but also created several dedicated patent trolls to serve as proxies. Lloyd wrote:

Ericsson has put together the CAFC brief for its appeal against the Central District of California federal court’s decision in its litigation with Chinese handset manufacturer TCL. This sets the scene for the next round of one of the most consequential disputes over standard essential patents (SEPs) that the mobile sector has seen in the US for many years. The document was filed more than six months after Judge James Selna largely sided with TCL over its claims that the Swedish telecoms giant’s licensing offers for its 2G, 3G and 4G patents were not FRAND.

“After almost a decade of litigation, Philips wins India’s first-ever SEP infringement decision,” Jacob Schindler (Lloyd’s colleague) wrote, having already repeatedly bashed India in an effort to make software patents legal there. This time it’s about Philips and its standard-essential patents:

After a number of very significant interim judgments in telecom licensing cases, the Delhi High Court has for the first time issued a SEP infringement verdict following a full trial. Philips was the beneficiary of the decision, in a case centered on the DVD Video and DVD ROM standards. But practitioners say the ruling leaves unaddressed questions on what constitutes FRAND conduct and abuse of dominant position in India. The lawsuit arose all the way back in 2009, when Philips sued two local companies – Manglam Technology and Bhagirathi Electronics – for making infringing DVD players.

Expect IAM to keep pushing this sort of toxic agenda, which merely acts as a “patent thicket” that obstructs competition and taxes the public.

IAM is not a news site. It is a front group disguised as a news site/publisher.

“Trade Secrets” Litigation Rising in the Wake of TC Heartland, Alice, Oil States and Other Patent-Minimising Decisions

Posted in America, Law, Patents at 6:02 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

The Justices have collectively made patent litigation less attractive a tactic

Drawing
Back to the drawing board

Summary: Litigation strategies are evolving in the wake of top-level decisions that rule out software patents, restrict venue shifting, and facilitate invalidation of patents even outside the courtroom

THE USPTO deals with two laws: patents and trademarks. Copyrights are managed by a separate office, suitably named the U.S. Copyright Office, and “Trade Secrets” (we put that in quotes and capitalised intentionally) are being dealt with by courts (this law was revised some years ago in Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA)). Those things aren’t the same; they’re inherently very different and calling them all “IP” is part of the propaganda peddled by law firms.

“Trade Secret/s” litigation is up whereas patent litigation is down very sharply because the latter is simply too risky to the plaintiff. "Trade Secret" 'damages' can, moreover, be much higher, vastly exceeding patent calculations. Here are some numbers from a new blog post:

The basics: Federal Trade Secret litigation is up about 30% following enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016. (1134 cases filed in 2017). The DTSA created a federal cause of action for trade secret litigation and resulting original jurisdiction in federal court for the federal claims. Prior to the DTSA, state-law trade secret claims found their way into federal court either via supplemental jurisdiction (typically linked to an a federal IP claim) or via diversity jurisdiction (parties from different states).

“The trade secrets dilemma” is IP Kat‘s latest title of a blog post — a post “drafted by Andrew McWhirter (Brodies Solicitors) concerning a recent Scottish trade secrets decision: Bilfinger v Edinburgh Tram Inquiry.”

“Trade Secret” is not just a US thing; different countries, however, implement or enforce that differently, using their own sets of laws, which can (and do) change over time.

Will we be seeing a departure from overzealous patent trolling in the coming years or decades? “Trade Secrets” aren’t the type of thing which can be passed to trolls.

Patent trolls are, as a matter of fact, dying in the US. Their patent litigation, more so after TC Heartland (at SCOTUS), is being shifted out of their comfort zone, typically Eastern Texas. Take note of this new example, wherein “Storage Units Do Not Satisfy Second Prong of Cray Test for Establishing “Regular and Established Place of Business”,” as per the summary. This is happening in New York:

Earlier this year, in CDX Diagnostic, Inc. v. United States Endoscopy Group, Inc., District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) filed by Defendants United States Endoscopy Group, Inc. (“Defendant”) and John Does 1-30. In its Motion, Defendant argued that the patent infringement action filed by Plaintiffs CDx Diagnostic, Inc.; Shared Medical Resources, LLC; and CDx Medical IP, Inc. against Defendants should be dismissed for improper venue. In particular, while Defendant conceded sales of allegedly infringing product into the Southern District of New York, it argued that Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that Defendant has a regular and established place of business within the Southern District of New York.

They keep coming up with ‘artistic’ (laughable is probably a more suitable term) ways to justify dragging the defendant to other states. It has gotten a lot harder after TC Heartland. If anything, TC Heartland has caused districts which are favourable/beneficial to patent trolls to lose actual, real business. Different rules apply to foreign companies.

The US should, in general, celebrate the demise of patent maximalism. It has done no good for the country, only for a bunch of parasites and bullies, notably trolls and their law firms. And what about public interest? Letting perfectly fine products, as per this new development in Tinnus Enterprises, LLC et al v Telebrands Corporation et al, go to waste because of patents? To quote Docket Navigator’s latest docket report:

The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied a retailer defendant’s request to sell its remaining inventory of the accused product.

All this because of patents? Before the decision even had an appeal opportunity (e.g. to the Federal Circuit)? That’s very much like ITC imposing embargoes in defiance of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) rulings, voiding the patents in question after an inter partes review (IPR). How does the public ever benefit from embargo, lack of choices and so on?

The EPO — Like the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and Unitary Patent System — is an Untenable Mess

Posted in Europe, Patents at 5:21 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

When a President associates with people like Željko Topić, whom many Croats want to see in prison (but EPO gives him immunity like some World Cop) just like his former boss, Prime Minister of Croatia Ivo Sanader

António Campinos and Željko Topić

Summary: The António Campinos-led EPO, nearly three weeks under his leadership, still fails to commit to justice (court rulings not obeyed), undo union-busting efforts and assure independence of judges; this, among other factors, is why the Office/Organisation and the UPC it wants to manage appear more or less doomed

“Be one of the thousands of learners who access our learning centre on a regular basis to learn about patents and much more,” the EPO wrote some hours ago, shortly after someone had said: “The EPO is not able to find the answers for their own Examinations? Good news.”

“The UPC isn’t getting off the ground any time soon; it probably won’t ever take off, even after they try to modify, rename and reframe it.”The Office is a mess. Nothing is really changing, just as many people expected (with only cautious optimism). António Campinos now approaches the end of his third week in Office and nothing has really improved. Never did we see the USPTO dealing with a mess remotely like this.

There’s an apt parallel here; recall the latest spin from Team UPC, bypassing/disguising the reality as explained just days earlier by the British government. Hogan Lovells, earlier today remarking rather belatedly on news from July 12th, said this:

On, 12 July 2018, the UK government published a White Paper addressing its plan for exiting the EU

[...]

The White Paper includes a short section on Intellectual Property and the UPC (Section 1.7.8). These paragraphs confirm that the UK intends to explore staying in the Unitary [sic] Patent Court and Unitary Patent system after the it leaves the EU.

If it leaves the EU. But an even greater issue for the UPC itself (not British participation) is the constitutional incompatibility and this relates to EPO corruption. Don’t let British elements of Team UPC perpetuate the two lies. The UPC isn’t getting off the ground any time soon; it probably won’t ever take off, even after they try to modify, rename and reframe it. No doubt they will carry on trying, even under/with Campinos, whose first action as President was UPC lobbying, as expected.

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

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 Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts