Recent Headlines in the IP World:
- Craig Sender: CCC’s Roy Kaufman Named to the Board of the United States Intellectual Property Alliance (Source: Business Wire)
- Blake Brittain: U.S. Panel to Review Patent From $2.1 Bln Intel Court Loss (Source: Reuters)
- Anders Månsson: The Canadian Intellectual Property Office Intends to Grant RhoVac’s Patent Application for RV001 (Onilcamotide) Cancer Vaccine (Source: Yahoo Finance)
- Evan Bush: From Texas to India, a Patent-Free Covid Vaccine Looks to Bridge Equity Gaps (Source: NBC News)
- Tom Auchterlonie: TD Bank Stresses Innovation in Competition to Land Tech Talent (Source: Business Insider)
- Keira Wright: Disney Patents Technology for a Theme Park Metaverse (Source: Cointelegraph)
Commentary and Journal Articles:
- Dr. Madelein Kleyn: Freedom to Operate Conundrum (Source: SSRN)
- Prof. Michael J. Meurer: Bilski and the Information Age a Decade Later (Source: SSRN)
- Prof.Laura A. Heymann: Trademarks in Conversation: Assessing Genericism After Booking.com (Source: SSRN)
New Job Postings on Patently-O:
“Today, the money is in being the best copier — not the best inventor.”
. . . and Big Tech and Communist China smile a knowing smile.
. . . while Congress sits on their collective hands . . . watching it happen.
In the immediate aftermath of Alice, I thought that its changes to our patent law were serious enough that it would materially depress innovation in certain relevant tech spaces. I was clearly wrong. Notwithstanding ongoing complaints about “innovation destroying changes,” we really have not seen any destruction of innovation in the decade since Bilski.
You and a LOT of other people were “clearly wrong” back then and continue to be “clearly wrong” about most other eligibility issues. The thing is, Greg, you and your cohorts did more than just “think” wrong. You all whined and complained bitterly and angrily about these cases and the devastation they would cause to “innovation” in the “carry out logic using a machine designed to carry out logic” “arts” even in the face of people telling you plainly that you were being ridiculous.
It’s actually a great story and the fact that it lines up with the rapid decay of the legal profession generally just makes it that much more interesting (and pathetic, if we want to be Frank about it).
Hi Malcolm,
Your old emotions without reason look is still not a good look.
The Reuters article about Intel/VLSI seems to be paywalled. I found a free version at the link below — YMMV on that, of course.
link to newsbreak.com
>a U.S. tribunal agreed to review the validity of one of two semiconductor patents that a jury said it infringed last year.
Talk about getting multiple bites at the apple.
Particularly given this bit:
>>The board denied Intel’s request to review the same patent in 2020.
“Talk about getting multiple bites at the apple.”
Indeed. So many bites these days that all’s that left if the core.
A long, long way from the patent system that helped build America.
“A South Dakota-based entity called Patent Quality Assurance LLC asked the board to review the first patent four months after the verdict. It told the tribunal that earlier inventions made parts of VLSI’s patent unprotectable.
Contact information for PQA wasn’t immediately available. The entity was registered in South Dakota less than a month before it filed the petition.”
Makes you wonder what arrangement is going on with Intel and PQA, LLC. Of course, it’s hard to blame Intel for this collateral extra-judicial attack on the Art III judgment (finality anyone?), in this new “dawn of the privy court” Oil States world view, indeed, such an extra-judicial attack for a well connected, well healed company like Intel is damn near REQUIRED, including of course all the unseemly behind the scenes pressure on the unprotected PTO staff and appointees. And to think just 20 or 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable to the Art III department to take jurisdiction over a case in which it could not render judgments with finality. Let alone, letting those judgments be routinely subject to collateral attack by the political departments.
— He has made [TPAB] Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
The tones of “capture” reverberate loudly.
We have exacerbated corruption and the influence of the already well-established.
Re your reasonable hypothesis that this new and mysterious South Dakota “PQA LLC” petitioning for a partial IPR against VLSI patents after the big WDTX jury award against Intel is not doing so out of self-interest: [Only surprised you did not call it a “shell IPR troll?”] But note that a false representation of the required statement of “real part in interest” in an IPR can be serious attorney misconduct. Also, a petitioner not self-exposed to patent infringement will deprive it of any Fed. Cir. appeal of the IPR decision but leave the patent owner free to appeal any IPR decision to the Fed. Cir.. Also, the WDTX jury verdict is far from a “final decision.” An infringement award of that size will of course have post-trial motions to decide and then a Fed. Cir. appeal which will typically get careful scrutiny. Also, was the prior art or its equivalents asserted in the IPR the same or equivalent of that available, asserted or considered in the jury trial, and will that make a difference? It will all be interesting to watch. The only thing clear is that further attacking the existence of the IPR system itself after more than ten years, thousands of decisions, and several failed Sup Ct. attempts, is not likely to be effective.
Translation; Rah Rah Rah (and don’t you dare complain)
And you were paid how much for that “observation?” Be specific.
Odd editing – with leaving the first offending post, but removing the cogent responses – with links to the legal point of cyber-sta1 king. As editor, this is not going to excuse your responsibility that may arise under that criminal realm, Crouch.
My direct points on the LACK of specificity from my pal Shifty goes directly to his game. Rather than coddle the person, why not invite him to actually engage on the points put to him?
Shall I dip into self help in the likes of http
s://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/05/patent-number-11000000.html#comment-597992 (and yep – STILL THERE).
Is that what your ‘editing’ is inviting?
“As editor, this is not going to excuse your responsibility that may arise under that criminal realm, Crouch.”
Can you expound a bit on that, Snowflake?
“Can you expound a bit on that, Snowflake?”
Meh, Your “Snowflake” remains out of touch, and the criminal elements that may apply to you will be left for you to decide, but the comment to Crouch has to do with his selective editing on these boards. Such selective editing MAY remove from him certain protections of having an open forum. Further, as criminal matters are very different, such entail direct responsibilities to not permit cyber-sta1 king (when one is not a pure presenter of a forum, but instead has taken a role in shaping content).
So you ARE threatening the professor. Be careful what you wish for. A subpoena can bring you out of your parent’s basement into the cruel light of day.
Unless you are in North Korea. Are you in North Korea, Snowflake?
Your false projections as a basis of your comment are rather odd, seeing as such a meme/tell has never worked.
There is zero threat in my statement — merely an observation of a pertinent law.
Your other false projection also carries no weight, as I have nothing to fear (and simply am not associated with my parent’s basement).
Daylight is not cruel for me. It may well be for you, though, given that you are the closest thing to a perpetrator here.
Back pedal much, Snowflake?
It’s difficult to judge which concept is funnier.
You threatening the professor or giving him legal advice.
Yet another false assertion from you, my pal Shifty, as there is zero backpedaling from me. No threat, and not sure why you think a professor would somehow be infallible when it comes to the law.
Have you ever been to law school? (serious question)
>>And to think just 20 or 30 years ago it would have been unthinkable to the Art III department to take jurisdiction over a case in which it could not render judgments with finality.
It is incredible. Stunning.
Two thoughts about the Meurer article:
1) In the immediate aftermath of Alice, I thought that its changes to our patent law were serious enough that it would materially depress innovation in certain relevant tech spaces. I was clearly wrong. Notwithstanding ongoing complaints about “innovation destroying changes,” we really have not seen any destruction of innovation in the decade since Bilski.
2) Meurer writes (pg 13) that “[f]irms apparently believe business method patents are still valuable enough to justify incurring prosecution costs.” The description “incurring prosecution costs” makes it sound like a binary value (one either “incurs costs” or not), when in reality “costs” tend to be more like a rheostat than an on/off switch. Do firms consider it prudent to incur the same costs for such claims post-Alice as they did pre-Alice? Or have they cut back (even if not all the way to $0)?
>we really have not seen any destruction of innovation in the decade since Bilski.
The latest NSF report now puts the USA not at #1 in science and engineering in all areas. We have fallen quite a bit since Alice.
Greg’s What Me Worry attitude is that if he sees patent numbers, then he shrugs his shoulders.
It’s as if (to him), linear is fine (not understanding that non-linear is desired).
Just bizarre that people will just say things now when you see before your eyes that it is not true.
The objective measures of our innovation engine are that it is sputtering.
I see one reason and one reason only for reading anything by the discredited academic Meurer: understanding one of the mindsets of the anti-patentists.
See 1.1.2 below
Not to diminish the significance of any loss of U.S. competitiveness, but your point does not speak to mine. I am talking about innovation, a global phenomenon that one tracks industry by industry. You are talking about competitiveness, a phenomenon that one tracks company by company or jurisdiction by jurisdiction. You really have not said anything that tells against my point.
Your attempt at “globalizing” is more than false, given that ALL patent law — at its corp – is Sovereign-centric law.
This is nothing more than your Big Pharma style blinders being on.
>we really have not seen any destruction of innovation in the decade since Bilski.
“We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters.”
Notwithstanding ongoing complaints about “innovation destroying changes,” we really have not seen any destruction of innovation in the decade since Bilski.
And how would you know that?
How many inventors have been frustrated in their attempts to monetize their inventions? How many of these inventors have been forced to sell their inventions to NPEs or operating companies for pennies on the dollar? My experience is that good inventors are serial inventors. They have a way of looking a things/problems in a way that may don’t. As a result, they just don’t come up with a single invention. Rather, they use their approach to addressing a problem to not just one problem but multiple problems, which leads to multiple inventions.
However, what happens when that first patent goes south? For example, they try to assert it and end up losing money on it. Many will quit right then. Some persist. However, in today’s anti-patent environment, even those that persist simply persist in losing their life savings.
You cannot see the innovation that does not exist as a result of talented inventors walking away from inventing because there is no money in it.
Today, the money is in being the best copier — not the best inventor.
[W]e really have not seen any destruction of innovation in the decade since Bilski.
And how would you know that?
All I said—and I stand by this assertion—is that we have not seen destruction (or evident diminishment) of innovation. I am not (uselessly) trying to prove a negative. If others think that they have evidence of such a diminishment, I would certainly be interested to see it.
What, Me Worry?!
… and he “stands by it.”
“You cannot see the innovation that does not exist as a result of talented inventors walking away from inventing because there is no money in it.”
As much as “innovation has not been harmed by X” is unfalsifiable, surely “innovation has been harmed by X” is also unfalsifiable.
Fair enough point on falsifiableness.
Which means that the metric may be more qualitative rather than quantitative.
Comments are closed.