- Manny Schecter: Congress Needs To Act So Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore
- Scott Graham: What To Expect From Neil Gorsuch On IP, Patents and Trade Secrets
- Eastern District Of Virginia IP Year In Review
- Bradley Graveline, Manish K. Mehta and Amy Harwath: Suing The United States Government For Patent Infringement
- Jack Purcher: Apple Granted 48 Patents Today
- Christopher Hall: Recursive And Iterative Algorithms In Patent Claims
Get a Job doing Patent Law
Joseph Herndon over at Patent Cr0cks: While the concept of simultaneously transferring funds without the necessity of a pre-established link between accounts does not seem abstract
LOL
Try to believe it, folks.
Did everyone see this morning that according to Rep. Issa (chairman of the IP subcommitte on the House judiciary committee) Michelle Lee is still in charge of the PTO. That is not as good as official word from the Commerce Dept, but it is better than nothing. Still and all, why all the mystery?
See my comment on the new thread as to “not as good as official word.”
What does “official word” mean when we have a completely l00ney tunes preznit?
Best part: some people actually admitted that they voted for this incompetent imbecile. And a whole bunch of other people got up on their high horses and claimed that “the other candidate was just as bad.”
LOL
Priceless stuff. All archived.
How’s that “protest vote” working for you, “anon”? Because “PC is the w0rst thing ever”.
LOLOLOLOLOL
“What does “official word” mean when we have a completely l00ney tunes preznit?”
What does your attempt to drive the discussion into the weeds and away from the topic directly related to patent law “mean”…?
Hint: the answer as to do with the repeated “?’s” I note to Prof. Crouch about the by-line of this blog, and how your 11 year run of blight simply does not care about that by-line.
Yay Ecosystem!
“And a whole bunch of other people got up on their high horses and claimed that “the other candidate was just as bad.””
She was – and in most all probability, would have been worse.
Donkey CRP is every bit as CRP as Elephant CRP.
“ All archived.”
Meaningless Malcolm, if you cannot break from your own script and understand what it is IN those archives.
“Because “PC is the w0rst thing ever”.”
Nice strawman. Not once ever have I ever said such. I HAVE pointed out the problems of PC (and to which YOU gladly stick your head into your nether regions and pretend that such problems do not exist).
So this is yet another typical Malcolm rant – full of obfuscations, strawmen and the like, while not actually adding ANYTHING of merit to the discussion, nor even bothering to address the substance of the post to which he is commenting upon.
And no doubt, if a “reply” is forthcoming, it will merely be more of the same CRP.
Not a Rule 36 Judgment but something similar today from the CAFC:
AAT Bioquest v. Texas Influorescence
PER CURIAM
.
On this limited record and in light of the arguments raised, the district court judgment is affirmed.
Prost, Moore and Chen
President Trump’s travel ban targeting nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries may not have held up in court, but it appears quite successful at keeping plenty of other people out of the United States.
Trump’s order brought with it a swift decline in the number of worldwide tourists and travelers looking to visit the United States, say people in the tourism industry. Some say it could be as damaging to the US tourism sector as the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
And it will also lead to a decrease in the number of innovative intelligent people who come to the US from other countries for education and end up staying here.
But a bunch of patent maximalist types chose this guy because … he’d nominate a “better” PTO Director? LOL It’d be funny if it weren’t true and real people weren’t being affected.
Dennis and Jason: if/when you start to see the impact on your incoming student population, please let us know.
“Online booking websites reported that flight searches from international points of origin to the United States were down anywhere from 6 percent to 17 percent since Trump signed the executive ”
Um yeah, those 6-17% were the ones planning on overstaying their visa. A duhr. They decided to stay home. Thx guys.
“And it will also lead to a decrease in the number of innovative intelligent people who come to the US from other countries for education and end up staying here.”
Thank goodness for silver linings. Maybe a few Mericans won’t have to compete with quite so many brainiacs from the entire world to get in a US school. And then they’ll get out and find a job.
I love how in love you are with brain draining the whole world “for us” MM. Is it any wonder why the 3rd world stays the third world? Somewhat smart 3rd worlder is born and educated>promptly poached by the US.
those 6-17% were the ones planning on overstaying their visa
LOL
Sure they were!
Is it any wonder why the 3rd world stays the third world? Somewhat smart 3rd worlder is born and educated>promptly poached by the US.
The Breitbart comments section, folks. Deep, deep stuff.
“The Breitbart comments section, folks. Deep, deep stuff.”
Third worlders to lefties: Please stop “helping” us. Maybe partner with us occasionally.
MM> MUST HELP THIRD WORLDERS! Must give free stuff! Instill handout culture, destroy local 3rd world businesses with handouts! Take their smartest ones and educate them in the US, then keep them in the US! It’s for the good of the third world you guys!
Twenty years later:
MM> How come the third world is only marginally better of than when I started you guys? OMG you guys, whitey (but not whitey MM) must be oppressin’ on them!
MM> Only people in the Breitbart comments section can’t comprehend the magnitude of muh virtue! Look you guys! Look how virtuous I am!
LOL – even 6 is noticing the number one meme of Malcolm’s Accuse Others Of That Which Malcolm Does.
It reminds me of Ned “enjoying the swagger’ – except when that “swagger” is directed towards Ned…
Granted, 6 is ahead of the game in his changed outlook on several patent law issues (even if he still cannot bring himself to thank me for educating him on these patent law issues).
PERSONAL WEB TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. APPLE, INC.
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
It looks like the worm has turned in that the PTAB is not going to get away with injustice on a continuous basis.
In this case, the PTAB held the patent invalid even though it did not cite support for all the (disputed) limitations in the claim, nor did it explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two references in the way provided by the invention.
Reversed and remanded.
Thanks, Ned.
Of course, a closer look at the specific facts and issues reveals the farcical nature of what is being requested.
What an unbelievable waste of time and money.
MM, so? Do only the truly innocent get due process?
I think there is a clear bias in the PTAB in favor of big companies against small fry. This travesty of a decision by the PTAB is simply one example. There are hundreds of others. If Dennis would conduct a poll of patent owners who have suffered at the hands of the PTAB, many patent owners would vote that they got shafted — their patents were invalidated without actual proof or by clever use of BRI.
Not that the courts do not do the same thing from time to time – hand small fry rough justice. Particularly, the Federal Circuit has a poor reputation. But, we all should demand justice for all people regardless of status.
If Dennis would conduct a poll of patent owners who have suffered at the hands of the PTAB, many patent owners would vote that they got shafted…
What, exactly, would this poll prove? I dare say that if you polled the patentee’s whose patents have been invalidated by the Supreme Court, the consensus would be that they had been treated unjustly. If we polled the federal prisons, we would find that most felons feel that the justice system does not work. These polls would all suffer from the obvious flaw of a biased sample. The justice of a system is not established by polling only the losers. One must ascertain the opinion of all involved parties.
Actually, that would also prove nothing.
Every case has at least one loser…
Well Greg, prior to the French Revolution the aristocracy was all in favor of the mock trial and the guillotine.
The question is not whether there are winners and losers but whether there was a fair trial and was the remedy appropriate. Of course the losers at trial always her little bit bitter because they thought they should have won. But if they are unhappy because they were railroaded, that is a horse of a different color.
There was no legitimate “process” in place for granting this absurd “patent right” in the first place so the emphasis on “due process” now is woefully misplaced.
Patentee asks the government for “rights” to “ten angels dancing on the head of three pins” and gets it. Then the patentee complains when they lose the right because “oranges don’t have coathangers.” Pardon me if don’t get terribly worked up by the “lack of due process.”
Is that comment in relation to examination in gen eral, or is it specific to a subset based on your feelings?
…that’s what I thought.
“…nor did it explain why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the two references in the way provided by the invention.”
Wasn’t there some random examiner here posting that such an explanation wasn’t required?
And here I thought KSR eliminated a mandatory TSM determination.
That patent is broad trash that teaches nothing, and even taken at face value, looking at the two references, anyone who could even comprehend what the references are doing would easily arrive at the putative “invention” the PTAB (rightly) invalidated.
If every variation of every technique is a patent, the world will grind to a halt.
I do agree that every time I read one of these Fed. Cir. decisions that uses the work “motivation” I cringe. Just substitute “reason” for “motivation” and any charge that the court is bringing back TSM.
There doesn’t have to be a “motivation” for one of ordinary skill to modify a reference, or to combine references. But there does have to be a “reason” one of ordinary skill would.
Maybe I should propose that any judge who uses “motivation” when discussing obviousness should be impeached.
Just saying.
Just read Manny’s piece over Quinn’s site: it is clear that he does not understand the law regarding the so-called exceptions and why they are there. He seemed to think that anything nominally within the four categories must pass 101. He does not understand that the essence of why products of nature and laws of nature are not patentable subject matter is that they are not new. Invention requires the creation of something new; and the finding of something in nature, or the discovery of a relationship that has always existed, is not the creation of something new. Thus in order to be patentable subject matter, the use of the product of nature or the application of the law of nature must be what is covered by the patent.
His main beef, though is with “abstract.” That problem was created by Bilski, not by Alice. I do not understand why Manny is focusing on Alice and not on Bilski. That alone is a problem – calling Justice Thomas names even though he wrote for a unanimous court. The guy who wrote Bilski, Justice Kennedy, is the real problem. But focusing on Thomas the way the proponents of the IPO do is clearly intended to diminish Alice, the assumption being that Thomas is incompetent. This is a vicious slur on Thomas, to be sure.
The problem of the Bilski case is that the claims in that case were not clearly abstract under the controlling Supreme Court case law, and the Supreme Court did not explain why they believed the claims in that case were abstract under that controlling authority. It was a simple announcement that the claims are abstract without much more.
If anybody doubts but I say here, simply read Stevens dissent in Bilski.
You do realize that most of Stevens concurrence (albeit in the tone of a dissent – that’s what happens when you are slated to write the majority opinion, but your views are simply too radical) was an abysmal
F
A
I
L
Eh, Ned?
You glom onto the “but what is “abstract” as if that was the main thrust.
It was not.
Anon, assume that the claims in Bilski are not eligible and also that they are not abstract. Why are they not eligible?
Ned,
Why did Stevens lose his position of writing the majority in the Bilski case?
(you should also realize that you imply a necessary condition which may not be so, given the plausibility that the Court is simply a broken scoreboard – still having trouble locating your State attorney oath, are you?)
Aah. Answer a question with a question?
Anon, do you agree or disagree that the claims in Bilski were ineligible?
Ned, the writings by the Court signify a broken scoreboard.
Ned – It is you that does not understand that DISCOVERIES are eligible and there is nothing to discover but laws and products of nature. Such discoveries might not be new, but they are NEWLY KNOWN and uncovering them is just the sort of thing we want to PROMOTE.
Furthermore, if new, doesn’t mean newly known by “man”, we could not dare to make anything patent eligible as everything exists or has existed somewhere in the multi-verse.
Reminds me of a portion of the AIA, in which “new to you” has been decreed by Congress to meet the definition of “new.”
Yet another thing that Ned “conveniently” overlooks…
So, Les, a professor discovers the second law of thermodynamics. Can he or she patent that discovery and then claim as infringements all processes whether heretofore known and in use or later invented?
If there are prior art man made uses of the Law, then he didn’t discover it, did he?
Les, are you joking?
No.
I mean it seriously. Do you even understand the law of nature is?
Yes.
Maybe we shouldn’t discuss this in the abstract. Why don’t you present a claim to the newly discovered second law for discussion purposes.
I claim the discovery that every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased. In the limit, i.e. for reversible processes, the sum of the entropies remains unchanged.
You have to claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
I don’t think that claim qualifies.
Standing by for your redraft.
Anon, I you suggesting that one cannot claim facts?
Wow, liquid lunch much?
Assuming you are talking to me, I am suggesting that you can only claim a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Ned,
Once again, the patent doctrine of inherency renders your trap rather ineffective.
Ned, way back then I was very unhappy with the Bilski decision in that it provided no guidance as to what is an “abstract idea.” I disagreed with Stevens’ “concurrence” (technically it wasn’t a dissent) and was glad he didn’t get the majority. In retrospect, I think it would have been better (for some of us who prefer patents on software) if Stevens’ concurrence was the majority. Then things would have taken a different track: business methods would be out (but they are out anyway under Bilski/Alice) but perhaps other things would not have been swept under the rug with business method patents.
pl,
Your reasoning smacks of fallacy and unsubstantiated wishful thinking of the type: get rid of the wolf at the backdoor by throwing him a steak.
anon, not sure exactly what you mean. But if you favor patenting software, if Stevens’ “concurrence” got the majority then could things possibly be any worse than they are now?
You do not understand the phrase “you do not get rid of a wolf at the back door by throwing it a steak”…?
Appeasement does not work.
Further, there is no legitimate reason to outlaw business method patents on a per se basis.
That would be akin to outlawing all medical method patents because of Mayo.
Anon, I never said that it was OK to judicially outlaw business method patents. Just that Stevens’ concurrence might have actually turned out to be the lesser of two evils. chill out, we’re on the same side.
You are not on my side if you are advocating for Stevens’ concurrence to have been a “better” avenue to take.
Sorry, but I take MY State attorney oath more seriously than some others here, and refuse to allow the Court to trample the separation of powers in some form of appeasement of a “lesser of two evils” scenario.
Finally! Someone who gets it.
Thank you patent leather.
A USA TODAY review of presidential documents found at least five cases where the version posted on the White House website doesn’t match the official version sent to the Federal Register. The differences include minor grammatical changes, missing words and paragraph renumbering — but also two cases where the original text referred to inaccurate or non-existent provisions of law.
Nobody could have predicted that the Prezidenting by the Breitbart Comment Section would be an epic fail.
Oh well. At least they don’t have the nuclear codes …. oh wait.
Breitbart…?
And this has what, exactly, to do with patents…?
Prof, that byline / any respect for “truth in advertising” as we embark on Malcolm’s 11 year Tour of Blight?
Well, there is the irony of a large swath of patent maximalists cheering wildly for this miserably incompetent navel-gazing buff 00n who probably can’t tell you the chemical formula for water or, even if he could tell it to you, couldn’t spell it correctly. And then somehow expecting him to show profound judgment in his ability to select a competent manager of the … patent office?! LOL
Scott Graham: What To Expect From Neil Gorsuch On IP, Patents and Trade Secrets
Seems a bit odd to go forward with the Supreme Court nomination made by a President who is surely going to be impeached and, if there is such a thing as justice, may also be the first President executed for treason.
But, hey, Gorsuch only l i e d about this pro b0no work at Harvard and spent his whole life dreaming of legal schemes to make life for minorities and w0men as difficult as possible. And then there was that kinda s ad j0key name for the F@ scist Club he started. But a totally cool guy otherwise! Just the kind of guy you’d want to hang with if you’re a rich white entitled silver sp0 on-fed d u d e who needs legal cover for his c0 rp0ration’s slick money gru bb ing scheme.
MM >>may also be the first President executed for treason.
So, DC, after 12 years of reading this blog it is hard to believe that you handed over the keys to the blog to this nxtbag.
Was there some earlier President executed for treason that I forgot about?
LOL
Never mind. Please return to your deep discussion of Obama’s conspiracy with Google to “burn the patent system down.” Very serious stuff there! Maybe Jason Chaffetz should be investigating that. After all, there’s nothing else going on.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
It is kind of amusing when a mild paranoid steps to a raving paranoid.
We are not going to execute a President anytime soon, nor is Trump going to be impeached anytime soon.
Ole’ Manny appears not to be aware that IBM was granted more patents than ever in the past few years, or at least an astounding number. Alice seems to have slowed them not at all.
Around the political Internet, the preferred formulation is “ But her email!
nor is Trump going to be impeached anytime soon.
I’d say the process is already begun, even if it’s not official.
We are not going to execute a President anytime soon,
Right, but that’s only because it would hurt some people’s fee-fees. I’m opposed to capital punishment, by the way. But the law is the law … or so we were once told before this m@niac incompetent took the reins.
Adding: I’ll also accept Trump’s resignation “for health reasons” at any time. Either or, as long as the investigations of his (and his family’s) conflicts of interest and self-dealing continue.
I’m still waiting for the media to wake up and call this disgrace what it is.
Had President Obama heeded Niccolo Machiavelli’s timeless advice in the least, he would have put Cheney in the dock and the GOP opposition would never have gotten its feet under it.
If you are waiting for the Democratic Party to show the least backbone, forget it; not in the liberal DNA to begin with, and the Democratic Party is now the conservative party anyway. Also, and this is not a small point, the President is somewhat popular out in the country, and the majority of people who vote prefer the Republican program right now.
I do think the man has some form of progressive dementia and he had no clue as to the weight of the office.
The worst part of all? Pence would be a lot worse. Trump has some facets of human decency, although that’s hard for many people to accept. I see nothing redeeming in Pence since he is a cunning, but not bright True Believer in movement conservatism which would be weaponized by a GOP Congress.
I know right? If MM prefers Pence, I mean, ok. But I predict an uptick in his whining with Pence.
Ned: so long as the left continues to think as you do, the nation will continue to vote Republican.
Say what? “The nation” as a whole is center left and Republican policies are deeply unpopular. The Dem candidate in this last election got 3 million more votes. That’s after voter suppression, a massive failure by the media to educate the public about the candidates, and after a Republican in the FBI engaged in a flat-out smear campaign against the Dem candidate rather than disclose information that would have tanked the Rep campaign.
Good grief, did you think people had forgotten about this? This is exactly why the Administration is crumbling now.
If MM prefers Pence, I mean, ok. But I predict an uptick in his whining with Pence.
I disagree with pretty much all of Pence’s positions on important policy issues. He’s also a hypocrite and a l i a r and he’s not very intelligent. And really all he wants to do is give tax cuts to his rich buddies and destroy the lives of people who happen to get sick at the wrong time.
But he’s not a lu n@ tic narcissist s 0 ci0 path who’s manifestly incapable of managing a bureaucracy. He’s just another soulless Republican who’ll sell the country in a second but I don’t see him launching missiles because someone mocked his tiny hands or whatever.
Pence’s major problem, of course, is that he was surely “in” on all of the election shenanigans and he’s lied about that. And all that’s going to come out.
MM, we shall see. The fact that the majority of state legislatures, governors, both houses of Congress and the presidency are all held by Republicans kind of suggests that your assumption that the Republican Party and its policies are deeply unpopular cannot be true.
But I agree, since the nation has given Republican Party power, they have to deliver.
Also, might I add, outside a few enclaves where Republicans do not campaign because they have no chance, e.g. California, the Republicans are the majority at present. So while Democrats may run up huge majorities in California, the rest of the nation is conservative.
Might I suggest you that the reason California produces large Democratic majorities in presidential races Democratic is that Republicans see no need to go to the polls at all because their votes simply do not count. I found it ludicrous that we had to choose between two Democrats running for United States Senator. The Republican Party simply is noncompetitive in California.
One party rule for very long time has its problems. Check out Chicago. Check out the old South that was solid Democrat. With such one-sided power, the Democratic Party in the South could do things like suppress the vote of Republicans through intimidation, and they did.
Might I suggest… that the reason California produces large Democratic majorities in presidential races Democratic is that Republicans see no need to go to the polls at all because their votes simply do not count.
True, but this point cuts both ways. Presumably there would be more GOP voters in CA if the elections there were genuinely competitive. Presumably there would also be more Democratic voters in TX if the elections there were genuinely competitive.
One party rule for very long time has its problems.
Definitely. I live in a city with one party rule, and I can certainly agree that it is not healthy. Competition begets vigor, and lack of competition begets stupor.
Check out the old South that… could do things like suppress the vote of Republicans through intimidation, and they did.
Or the modern South, that suppresses the votes of Democrats. As noted above, one party rule is discernibly unhealthy.
“and destroy the lives of people who happen to get sick at the wrong time.”
Rhetoric like that makes you sound like a ta rd bro. If you said “he wants to allow people who happen to get sick at the wrong time to have their lives destroyed seeking likely overpriced medical care” that would be closer to the truth at least.
“But he’s not a lu n@ tic narcissist s 0 ci0 path who’s manifestly incapable of managing a bureaucracy. He’s just another soulless Republican who’ll sell the country in a second but I don’t see him launching missiles because someone mocked his tiny hands or whatever.”
True, but Mike “shock the gay away” Pence he might try to shock the gay away.
“Pence’s major problem, of course, is that he was surely “in” on all of the election shenanigans and he’s lied about that. And all that’s going to come out.”
All the election shinanigans? Come on, don’t hold back, tell us your most recent conspiracy theory that you heard from your totally legit media.