Recent Patent Law Job Postings on Patently-O

Patent

 

Hide comments

124 thoughts on “Recent Patent Law Job Postings on Patently-O”

  1. 39

    Wow, # 8 (link to patentlawnj.com… ) is an unholy nightmare. Besides the fact that it includes 202 claims, most of those claims include Markush groups, and many of them include Markush groups nested within Markush groups. First action allowance.

  2. 38

    That’s 3,000 claims in just 12 cases.It would seem to be a reasonable assumption that such cases would require vastly more time to examine for compliance with all sections of the patent statute than a case presenting, say, 10 claims. Certainly a law firm would inform a client up front that this would be the case, if the client wished for the claims to be analyzed.In that regard, it would also seem reasonable that the amount of time given to Examiners for such cases should be proportionally increased, and (likewise) the amount of patent term extension granted to applicants should be similarly decreased.

    1. 38.1

      Eh, I’m not sure that’s worth the trouble. The vast majority of the 3-year target period is time during which no actual handling of the application is going on. Even if the excess claims increase the examiner’s work ten-fold, you’re still talking about maybe 20-25 days of work instead of just two. Certainly the examiners’ quotas should reflect the extra work, and the extra fees make sense, but I don’t think it makes sense to adjust PTA by a few days based on claim count. If you’re talking about larger adjustments than that then you’re talking about a penalty rather than a rational adjustment, and there’s no point in incorporating unrelated penalties into the already over-complicated PTA calculation.

      1. 38.1.1

        The vast majority of the 3-year target period is time during which no actual handling of the application is going on.But that’s because other applications are being handled.The point is acknowledgement of the fact that excessive claims require excessive time. Paying extra fees does not create extra time. You can throw all the fees you want at an Examiner but it still requires time and there are only 8 hours in a day for normal people doing normal jobs that don’t require arguing with lawyers who think they deserve a $100 million dollar patent yesterday. If you’re talking about larger adjustments than that then you’re talking about a penalty rather than a rational adjustmentFirst, I’d say “one to two days” for a complete Examination of a typical claim set, including a write up (and review) which meets the “standards” required by the “appeal everything” crowd is absurd. Second, I don’t think there’s anything “complicated” about introducing this sort of penalty into a PTA calculation. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think even a powerful computer brain from forty years or fifty years ago would have an easy time of that.The idea is to deter these ridiculous claim sets which s*ck up limited resources, both at the PTO and elsewhere. Make it simple: more than 25 claims, you lose 1 year off your PTA (if there is any). More than 50, two years. More than 100, three years. Etc. Nothing “complicated” about it.

  3. 37

    a portable online gambling device; Invented by Jay WalkerSounds like a car accident waiting to happen.

    1. 37.1

      44. An apparatus, comprising: a memory of a portable wagering medium, the memory storing an indication of a game play attribute which, when utilized in association with at least one displayed play of a primary wagering game, alters at least one game play characteristic of the at least one displayed play of the primary wagering game to be associated with the game play attribute; and a communications device of the portable wagering medium, the communications device configured to operate to provide the indication to a gaming device associated with the primary wagering game.Calling Judge Rader! Calling Judge Rader! (“a system claim generally covers what the system is, not what the system does. Hewlett–Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1468 (Fed.Cir.1990); see also Roberts v. Ryer, 91 U.S. 150, 157 (1875)”).So, let’s see what the claim covers:44. An apparatus, comprising: a memory, and a communications device.It really is great to see Judge Rader focusing on the functional claiming issues that have long plagued the dumptruck arts. Very impressive, Judge Rader.

      2. 37.1.2

        Somebody forgot their “claim as a whole” rule of law again…(hmmm, same somebody who is attempting to misrepresent what Rader actually said about importing from the spec into the claim…)

        1. 37.1.2.1

          what Rader actually saidI quoted Rader. It’s time for Judge Rader to begin thinking about what he is “actually saying,” for a change.I still have hope for him in that regard, unlike you.

          1. 37.1.2.1.1

            “I quoted Rader”Malcolm – misquoted is more like it. Of course, for one who always thinks “WHATEVER” when it comes to spin, I doubt that you recognize the difference between a quote and a misquote.”unlike you” – Your quip is a vacuous (and quite meaningless) comment.

            1. 37.1.2.1.1.1

              I doubt that you recognize the difference between a quote and a misquote.I doubt you recognize the difference between your mouth and your ar se. Nobody else can.

            2. 37.1.2.1.1.2

              I doubt that you recognize the difference between a quote and a misquote.I doubt you could explain the difference to anyone without sticking your foot so deep in your mouth that it comes out your other end.But please give it a try. It’s Tuesday and we could all use a laugh.

  4. 36

    Jason, I love the list. Love it so much, in fact, that I summarized each of these cases in a paragraph at link to schottpc.com…. It won’t give your students an edge in class but it might be a helpful Cliff Notes to a non-lawyer.

  6. 34

    Chaing’s article clarifies the distinction between interpretation and construction and how the Federal Circuit is confusing the issue and not drawing the proper distinctions. These battles rage every day in District Court, and the ITC and in the Federal Circuit without ever articulating what the real principles are and what the objective is.Historically, courts of construed patents and not just claims. There is a reason for that. Fundamentally, patents are awarded to protect inventions. The invention must be described. The patent can only legally cover that invention and equivalents. To the extent that the literal language is broader than the scope allowed by the disclosure, there is a problem. The question is how the address that problem: Hold the claims invalid for one reason or another, or to construe them to be limited to the invention disclosed and equivalents?Hstorically, the Supreme Court has adopted both approaches. For example, in Perkins Glue, the court held the claims invalid where the discovery actually made by the inventor was not in the claims. But in Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake, the court construed the claims to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents.It seems to me, that the simplest approach is the approach mandated by Westinghouse unless the claims are so egregiously indefinite that one cannot tell what the corresponding structure is.

    1. 34.1

      It seems to me, that the simplest approach is the approach mandated by WestinghouseThere is nothing “simpler” about that approach compared to the “historical” approach (that I can see anyway).Unfortunately, the Westinghouse approach is also the approach that (1) renders claims superfluous and (2) leaves the public at least as much in the dark about the “invention” they need to worry about infringing, compared to the “historical” approach (where claims are interpreted to mean what they say and invalidated when they are too broad).

  7. 33

    Jason, I’m interested in claim construction. I should be interested in American critiques of the English position as set out by Judge Hoffmann in the Kirin Amgen case:link to bailii.org…link to en.wikipedia.org…in which judgement the key quote (in para 34) is:”The question is always what the person skilled in the art would have understood the patentee to be using the language of the claim to mean.”Do we agree, that patents are addressed, not to a philologist, lawyer or judge, but to a person (engineer or scientist) of skill in the relevant art, to define and describe a contribution to their art, and that the addressee is to be imputed to have a hungry mind, willing to understand precisely what the author of the claim was using the words of the claim to mean to that addressee?Merits of the English approach include i) to business people, investors, inventors, engineers and scientists it is nothing more than common sense ii) it frustrates litigators trying to get other constructions up and running and iii) it renders a Doctrine of Equivalents superfluous. Is there anything wrong with the English approach to claim construction though?

    1. 33.1

      “Do we agree, that patents are addressed, not to a philologist, lawyer or judge, but to a person (engineer or scientist) of skill in the relevant art…”Not in the US. First and foremost, patents are legal documents. They are most decidedly not technical journals, of which the person of skill in the relevant art would be the primary target.add: MaxDrei, please do not confuse purpose and context (PHOSITA is a tool, a means, and not an end)

      1. 33.1.1

        Legal docs? Sure. For the court to construe I think (Markman). Also in England, since before 1791. But (pace Phillips, but also in England) does not the court don the mantle of the skilled man, when working out what the claim means?

    2. 33.2

      Max, your “English approach” seems similar to the way that many American jurists (and lawyers) understand claim construction to work (the term “hungry mind” is rather redundant and silly, though).One problem with the approach, of course, is that many (most?) patent claims aren’t drafted by people striving with all their abilities to describe the invention in terms that are as clear and precise as possible to the skilled artisan. Claim drafters are striving for something else in many cases, particularly with their independent claims.The other problem is that people make mistakes when drafting claims. Mistakes are correctable, of course, and the system provides many opportunities for correction. But should they be correctable by claim construction in court after the patentee has taken aim and pulled the trigger on a particular defendant? It seems fair at that stage to hold the patentee responsible for his/her mistake, regardless of how a “hungry minded” artisan might have understand the claim.

      1. 33.2.1

        Yeah, “hungry” was a bit silly, i suppose. I was thinking of the baker reading the Chef America patent, curious to discover how to make tastier bread.Inappropriate claim drafting? Yes, that same Judge Hoffmann in STEP v Emson reminded the English judges that a claim is a unilateral definition with words freely chosen by the drafter. If there is a limitation in there it will be given deference, and effect. So, whether the “mistake” is correctible in court depends on the nature of the “mistake” I think.

  9. 31

    No the initial document disclosure plan needs to return with only complete conception required. High technical perfection application means stolen patent subject matter due to expionaging and the inability of 99% of citizens unable to use the patent system

  10. 30

    This coment does not want to stay in here have you got any glue Dennis. Yes we need to bring back the initial document disclosure program. The technical perfection requirements of the Kapos regeim are thefting original parent conceptions from true concievers and not even allowing a reasonable % for complete conceptions. This provision denies 99% of filers their cival rights to obtain a patent and shuts down the system of top marketable conceptions and associated revenues jobs and exports.

  11. 29

    The reality of PAEs in practice has been quite diferant than what they should be in theory. In the first place you cant even find one except Muthvold and he is broke from investing in bad patents. PAEs popup whenever a espionager steals a patent usually from me. The patent investors PAE or invention conciever direct dealers dont know where to find legitimate IPs to invest in but when they do find one they want to steal it for pennies on the doller and that can be low enough to destroy the incentive to create. They need legislation to ensure fair compensation to concievers 33% to 66% would ensure that concievers could become PPEs and more patents will keep coming for the future if done in coperation with eliminating the 40 methods of cheating inventors in the AIA and previous legislations and corruptly ignored critical provisions not adressed in The AIA The system could roar back to life again

  12. 28

    PAEs are essentially contingent attorneys that dont pay the true concievers peanuts but pay now ,not wait for trial outcomes. PAEs are the only thing that keeps the incentive to create alive for invention concievers as they level the playing field against big pocket corps who want to pay concievers nothing, PAEs dont level that field very well though.

    1. 28.1

      hi, really? I thought that was the point of the study — to find out such things — how inventors or their original investors were compensated. However, may I ask what would happen if the FTC were to declare it unlawful to sue on a patent where one was not making a covered product? Just what would happen to startups?

      1. 28.1.1

        If the FTC were to make it unlawful for NPEs to file then startup inventors couldent become practicing entities denying their cival rights to be issued a patent. By selling a few patents they can gain startup capitol theoretically but thefts and frauds using 40 diferent methods usually startup to cheat them of that right. Also NPE invention concievers provide business with their only source of new products so if denied the right to file then established businesses cuts their own throats as far as producing new jobs revenues and exports

        1. 28.1.1.1

          By selling a few patents they can gain startup capitol theoreticallyOr they could actually do some work to “gain capital.” Or they could ask someone for capitol. Not every “invester” demands the filing of patents in exchange for capital.You need to recognize that the ability to monetize j*nk patents is part of the reason that certain “investers” like to see patents. It means that when all else fails and it turns out they “invested” in some incompetent or unlucky people, they still have a shot at the patent casino where they can sue someone who was actually successful. It’s this latter “attraction” that needs to be shut down.

          1. 28.1.1.1.1

            We need to keep top inventors working on top marketable new products that advance humanity. If your good at something then keep doing that. top Marketable invention is rare and precious and we need to ensure justice and proper credit is given even in passed invention situations where true concievers have been cheated. Yes awarding patents postumiously will stop the patent casino because the purchasers dont want to pay twice

          2. 28.1.1.1.2

            Yes the patent casino needs to be shut down because it involves my stolen patent conceptions that have been taken using every dirty trick in the book. The ones that are sucessful are the ones who wont pay or pay the wrong persons. The indegent like myself never had a chance due to the money monopoly and dirty tricks to even get started

      2. 28.1.2

        The thing to do to reduce or eliminate the nessity of patent trolls is tighten the system to eliminate all the other methods of cheating the true conciever. Like establishing early who the IP conciever is by immediate novelty check and Lockering on filing,for companies claiming they had the invention previous to the applicant. Also disallowing startups unless the companies have negotiated patent usage contracts with concievers to stop income losses from exclusive market destructions by allowing infringments. Forcing partnerships immediatly means no nessity for troll actions that suck down profits for both parties the the thieving infringer and patentee victum

        1. 28.1.2.1

          Forcing partnerships immediatly means no nessity for troll actionsThere is very little distinction between “troll action” and an “invention conceiver” who sits around “conceiving” of patent claims that can be asserted against a company who actually makes and markets a successful product.

          1. 28.1.2.1.1

            Malcolm, I would agree that people who sit around and think up business method patents describing conventional ways of doing business are not really inventing.But there are others who figure out better circuits, for example. I think of the guy who invented the NAND flash cell. His company is now called SanDisk.Name the inventor.

            1. 28.1.2.1.1.1

              Theoretically if its anything significant I invented it in parent form or its major subinventions in most cases. Sitting around thinking up inventions is very important and your just jelious because you cant do it.

          2. 28.1.2.1.2

            Without the invention conciever the company wouldent be marketing any product at all as in nonexistant conception = nothing!

    2. 28.2

      PAEs are the only thing that keeps the incentive to create alive for invention concieversPure unadulterated horse hockey. Also, these “invention conceivers” you refer to … what is it that most of them are “creating”? Methods of shoving an ad in my house? Methods of “allowing me” to communicate information with a computer? Methods of taking information from me and “monetizing it”? Who’s asking for this “creation”? I can tell you for sure that I’m not asking for this stuff to be created. Pretty much nobody is. Why is that? Because nobody needs to ask for it. Companies will find ways to make money. That’s how capitalism works. We don’t need a class of pathetic lazy “invention conceivers” to sit around and come up with “ideas” about how companies can make money, just so they can turn around and sue any company that actually does make money.And by the way: who are you to speak for “invention conceivers” anyway? We’re all “invention conceivers” in this day and age, when an “invention” is apparently anything you can imagine doing with a computer that hasn’t been described exactly as you describe it.they level the playing field against big pocket corps who want to pay concievers nothingAgain: that’s a just a bunch of cr*p. You have a patent that is being infringed? Hire an attorney and file the lawsuit. Nobody is stopping you from doing that now and nobody is trying to stop you from doing that. If you’ve got a valid patent, you’ll get your license and damages.PAEs are essentially contingent attorneysCompletely false.PAEs …. dont pay the true concievers peanuts but pay nowThat’s not a “contingency attorney.”

      1. 28.2.1

        What invention concievers create is everything made by the hands of man and without them the world would be primative as it was in 1953 when I began concieving the top 20000 inventions of all times. and my three grandfathers concieved everything before that to the 1804-5 invention of fire and metal

          2. 28.2.1.1.2

            yes I thought you knew you were talking to Michael R Thomas. “concievers” should have tipped you off.

      2. 28.2.2

        Allot of the invention of today involves previously sucessful business methods with new twists. I invented all methods of advertizing in parent form but some are putting new twists on the old to make money I think that is how capitolism works and the best methods win except I never got paid for the parent conceptions

      3. 28.2.3

        Lazy pathetic invention concievers? Hogwash!. Disgusting! ingratitude truley pathetic and you couldent have picked a whorse person to portray that too. I am the worlds only inventor of significance so immagine the world before my great great grandfather George lived in. Just dig a hole in the ground to be your house and your water well at the bottom then forage for grubs and snakes all day to survive I am sure you wouldent like it.

      4. 28.2.4

        Hire an attorney? thats why we need trolls the indegent concievers dont have any money so the big pocket corps wont deal with them only steal from them

      5. 28.2.5

        Well ya there not contingent attorneys because the uncertianty and corruption of the litgation in patent law is so bad and only getting whorse with every new law that contingents wont take the case. It is a legal partnership with a court representative based on a patent so very similar to a contingent

      6. 28.2.6

        Hogwash! wile your not asking for new inventions your not obligated to buy it either so what is it hurting you and why do you feel you have the right to deny it to those who do want to use the new inventions. Some of the inventions are better than others and the free market will find out the true value of the invention to human advancement The courts shouldent be involved in condeming it it discourages concievers from performing their vital function of filing and the inventions existing instead of nonexistance

  13. 27

    FTC wants to know: How do PAEs engage in assertion activity (i.e. demand, litigation, and licensing behavior)? After what Scotus did in Medimmune, if a patentee does NOT sue first, he risks being the defendant. Maybe if Medimmune got reversed by legislation, the parties could have a business discussion without a pending lawsuit.

    1. 27.1

      American, I think there was also another case, I can’t recall the one, but it was from the Federal Circuit, that held that if one received a license offer from a NPE, that one could sue on that alone?But don’t worry. Standing is not an issue with IPRs. No conversation, however innocuous, can keep a licensing entity out of the PTO.

  14. 26

    Let’s start with increasing the quality of issued patents. This requires a first class data base of prior art (including literature prior art), a first class classification of the prior art, and well-trained examiners.

    1. 26.1

      We’ve been “starting” that for at least the last 5 years. I haven’t noticed too much of a shift in the cases I see on PO in terms of quality.

        1. 26.1.1.1

          I could only speak for however long I’ve been here. But yea I figured it’s been more or less forever.

    2. 26.2

      Lets go the oposite direction and return to the initial disclosure document program. The technical perfection program is haulting human advancement because there is to few who have the knowledge to write technical reports and it tips the secrecy of non devulgement due to having to research that is subject to espionaging and it cuts 99% of citizens right out of their cival rights to a patent

    3. 26.3

      With patent quality improvements comes corperate domination of invention thefts ability and cival rights violation of 99% of citizens. Return to the initial document disclosure program means true concievers wont need a degree in every field they want to file in that could take 3 lifetimes to obtain.

      1. 25.1.1

        I thought patent infringement was against the law?Last time I checked it still is. Of course, laws that never should have been passed in the first place are routinely broken by (1) people who have no reason to believe that such a law could ever exist because the law is so absurd and (2) people who realize that the “law” is a joke and any attempt to enforce the law will result in the law being stricken from the books.Put another way: I have a computer. It’s programmable. I use the computer to receive, process and transmit information. I will program that computer any way that I want to, to communicate with anybody that I want to about anything (e.g., who my friends are, who I “like”, what products I like, etc), and nobody is going to tell me that they “own” that method. Or rather, they can tell me whatever they want but in return they are going to get a middle finger in their face and nothing else.

        1. 25.1.1.1

          You are right that all intellectual property serves as a form of regulation against what you can do with your physical property. So is your point here that you are against all intellectual property or regulation regarding what you do with your physical property?

          1. 25.1.1.1.1

            So is your point here that you are against all intellectual property or regulation regarding what you do with your physical property?Neither, in fact. I’m against regulation that prevents me from using my computing devices for their intended purpose(s), e.g., to receive, process, store and transmit any and all kinds of information legal information more quickly and efficiently than is possible without that computer.There are few things that are analogous because, as far as I can tell, there aren’t reams of folks lining up (yet) trying to patent methods of, e.g., using my car to drive to particular places, at particular speeds, past certain “checkpoints”, carrying certain objects, etc. Most of the insanity is taking place in the so-called “computing arts” in part because of some impossibly shallow and legally meaningless hoo-haw about the “essence of electronic structure.”

          2. 25.1.1.1.2

            I’m pretty sure that his point here is that, when it comes to methods of using machines that were already capable of performing whatever intended use you wish to put them to via instruction from yourself to actually do it, those are not part of the valid domain of a restriction on what you can do with your physical property via intellectual property laws.

            1. 25.1.1.1.2.1

              6, anon still has not explained what Rader was talking about in his Alice opinion when he said that “putting” an abstract idea on a computer was not patentable under 102/103, or did he mean 112 or 101? The central dispute between anon and me is boils down to just this: is one using the computer or is the computer “permanently” programmed such that it operates differently.I suspect that even Rader must agree that “using” a computer (or any old calculating machine) to calculate something abstract (i.e., that is not used for anything) is not new. But what statute shall we use…….?

              1. 25.1.1.1.2.1.1

                “6, anon still has not explained what Rader was talking about in his Alice opinion when he said that “putting” an abstract idea on a computer was not patentable under 102/103, or did he mean 112 or 101? “How about thanking your lucky stars we have had a break from anon for the last little while? “But what statute shall we use…….?”I use 102. And occassionally 101, 112 and 103.

        2. 25.1.1.2

          Malcolm, on freedom of thought and expression, we agree. Suing doctors, for example, because they “know” of a correlation seems to be an invasion of fundamental liberty that will not long be tolerated.Lawmakers know not to pass laws that people will not obey. Such laws undermine the rule of law itself.

    2. 25.2

      Shouldn’t the concept of “troll” include the concept of doing something illegal?Because why? Because only currently “illegal” activities merit criticism?

      1. 25.2.1

        Malcolm, the word troll is bandied to defame and to prejudice. It implies that the person is doing something unethical. It is used in court by big infringers to bias juries. It is use in congress to pass laws that entrench the powerful and discourage startups.These rich and powerful folk who label all patent holders who might sue them trolls do so with a purpose.Troll needs to be limited to attorneys and firms who are acting in an unlawful manner in some respect. Asserting patents with no reasonable basis for infringement might be one of them. But the defamers targets are not so limited. See anything in the FTC mandate regarding anything illegal or unethical? No. The FTC seems to be targeting anyone who asserts patents regardless of the merits of their patents or of their infringement claims.

        1. 25.2.1.1

          The FTC seems to be targeting anyone who asserts patents regardless of the merits of their patents or of their infringement claims.They are trying to collect information.

    3. 25.3

      Yes it should be called patroller not troll and all who try to obtain justice from infringing thieves should be called criminals in a reverse justice world

  16. 24

    Joe Mullin discussed the events leading up to this here:link to arstechnica.com…If the FTC does move ahead and collect more information on this issue—and its unlikely the directors would have publicly said they support it if they didn’t have support on the Commission—that doesn’t mean all the information listed above will become public. Rather, the FTC will create a public report with aggregated and averaged information, so anyone looking for a spreadsheet detailing the finances of every patent assertion entity will be disappointed.Having said that, much of the information listed above really should be public. Patents are monopolies granted by a government agency that should represent citizens first; courts have long been too obliging about allowing both PAEs and operating companies to keep information secret about patent assertion. Patent owners are fond of using metaphors about owning land when they want to win a lawsuit, but have strongly resisted providing the kind of disclosure available to the public in real-estate records.Given the documented propensity of the typical troll to lie under oath when it matters and is easily detected (e.g., in court), we can expect the responses to these subpoena’s will be deeply “massaged” by the responders.

      1. 24.1.1

        you have an idea, it seems, that patent owners lie and infringers tell the truth.I have an “idea” that the US patent system is just about completely broken and as far removed from its original purpose as anyone could ever have imagined. The number of people falsely accused of patent infringement and/or who infringe patents that should never have been granted in the first place absolutely dwarfs the number of people who intentionally “copy” patented methods and profit from them.But make no mistake: patent owners do lie. So do patent applicants. They lie all the time, every day, and every day their lies go unchecked because the PTO is incapable of checking them and the Federal Circuit has done its best (and continues to do its best) to cover the backs of the liars and keep the grifting machine running at full tilt. There is nothing remotely controversial about any of this. Just look at how many patents are being filed and granted each day, during an incredible recession. What do you think is going on? All of a sudden, in the course of 10-15 years, human beings got wildly more innovative? Please.

        1. 24.1.1.1

          MM – In my experience, copying is alive-and-well in the corporate world. You make money by applying an idea that works (regardless of who came-up with the idea). Now, free-market folks would say that is the way a market economy should work. This makes me think that your statement above lacks merit. (“The number of people falsely accused of patent infringement and/or who infringe patents that should never have been granted in the first place absolutely dwarfs the number of people who intentionally “copy” patented methods and profit from them”). Regarding the increase in patenting. The increase does not appear to be driven by it being somehow easier to obtain patent protection than it was 15 or 30 years ago.

          1. 24.1.1.1.1

            D you just now noted the thing that is at the heart of the discussion. You’re absolutely right that they copy the “idea”, as opposed to INTENTIONALLY copying the patented method. Which is yet another problem that is just now being cleaned up via 101. For the gazillionth time, and I know this might be hard to hear through whatever indoctrination you receive at patent law conferences, patents are for the specific applications of ideas, not the ideas themselves. Or at least that is what is supposed to happen.

            1. 24.1.1.1.1.1

              6 – The only folks who get sued for infringement are those who take some action – i.e., make, use, or sell an embodiment of the invention.

            2. 24.1.1.1.1.2

              6, this is just nonsense that somehow people are trying to patent ideas. They are not. They are patenting large sets of solutions that are functionally described. This is the same as in the mechanical, electrical and chemical arts.You have absolutely no basis in fact in what you are saying.LizardTech goes through very well how to understand sets of solutions and whether or not a solution is covered by the specification.Again, what we have is the anti’s search for a nuclear bomb which involves ignoring patent law and creating some propaganda statement that sounds nice until it is examined in terms of the 1952 patent act and case law prior to the rise of the Lemleys.

              1. 24.1.1.1.1.2.1

                “6, this is just nonsense that somehow people are trying to patent ideas. They are not. “He said just as he probably got done dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s on an application clamiing an idea. “They are patenting large sets of solutions that are functionally described. “The vast majority of applicants before me aren’t. Why can’t the rest of you fall in line? “This is the same as in the mechanical, electrical and chemical arts”You assert that, yet the instant application before me irl involves no “large set of solutions that are functionally described” in the entire application, much less the claims.

                1. …

                  Still you ignore LizardTech. If they are claims to ideas as you say with no enablement, then this is handled by the 1952 Act by 112.

                2. ” If they are claims to ideas as you say with no enablement”I never said they weren’t enabled. In fact I haven’t mentioned enablement at all. But yes, I do “ignore” lizardtech. I also pay attention to it.

          2. 24.1.1.1.2

            In my experience, copying is alive-and-well in the corporate world. You make money by applying an idea that works (regardless of who came-up with the idea).Of course that’s true. That’s why patents should be granted only for very specifically described and exceptional technological improvements. Then you innovate around them or you buy the technology.But the present system is far removed from that ideal. Take the example of the j*nk patent on the use of a “dedicated” monitor that can display different information on it. Of the hundreds (thousands?) of people accused of infringing, how many of them thought, “Gosh that’s probably covered by a valid but screw it, it’s so valuable I’m going to infringe and take my chances”? I’m guessing close to zero. That’s what I’m talking about. But the troll defenders want us to live in a world where patent litigation risk is just a way of life. They’ve said so explicitly: “It’s part of doing business.” And that includes any business, apparently, as long as you have a computerized device! Virtually nobody wants to live in that world, except the presently invested stakeholders.The increase does not appear to be driven by it being somehow easier to obtain patent protection than it was 15 or 30 years ago.I can’t speak for 30 years ago. I do know that it is just as “easy” to get a patent today as it was 15 years ago, as long as you mention that you’re using a computer or throw in some algorithm to spice up your recited business method. By a combination of (1) incompetence, (2) bizarro world application of the law and the creation of equally bizarre judicial rules, and (3) technological-backwardness, the USPTO is apparently incapable of examining claims to computer-implemented “inventions” in a consistent, thoughtful manner. Business methods come in a close second.So it’s not the “increased ease” of “obtaining patents” that accounts for the increase in patents and patent filing. It’s the increased awareness by exploiters of the patent system that patents can be obtained on just about anything as long as you throw enough money at them. And if you’ve got a certain number of those patents in your hand, then you can leverage them for financial game. It doesn’t matter if your “innovations” stink or if they amount to an attempt to patent a fact or some obvious use of a computer or if you’ve never actually developed and manufactured a single successful product in your entire life. The current system is readily and easily exploited by those with the means to exploit it. And so that’s what they’ve been doing.

            1. 24.1.1.1.2.1

              Ned is correct. I worked for one of the largest corporations in the world and we were encouraged to copy and we would take any product that wasn’t protected by a patent. We would take products apart and figure out how they were made. Your product was our product if you didn’t have a patent. And, if you did they we figured out how to design around it. That is the real world. MM writes nonsense that has no basis in fact.And, MM continues to project myths about innovation including that innovation comes in giant steps. It does not. It comes in tiny steps. Hollywood has movies about giant steps. The real world is 1000 tiny steps.Moreover, as I have said many times, the reason the PTO is not great at examining information processing patent applications is because of Benson. But, look at other art fields and you will see just as many patents that seem absurd. Again, it is the attempt at trying to control what is considered.Lourie truly is engaged in an act that should get him impeached. The notion that machines that process information should not be eligible for patentability is not supported by our law.Additionally, Lourie is engaged in the nonsense that he has built a model of computers that any process that he can describe in words he believes is obvious. This is absurd and evinces an ignorance of computers that is frightening. Lourie uses words that are terms of art in computer science as if he understands them for a brain. For example, “determine.” Additionally, the big picture is that our supposedly broken system is the core of innovation of the world. The only countries that rival us are countries that have patent systems that are as strong as ours. China is now in the process of trying to get a patent system like ours to encourage innovation.And, two machines with the same structure cannot behave differently. MM is clearly a paid person for pressing an agenda. And, this group of anti’s simply ignore these huge macro contradictions to their positions.You know the biggest problem is the fed. cir. judges when they spend 15 minutes discussing a paper and pencil test that is rendered absurd by the Church-Turing Thesis.But, MM just writes the same nonsense year after year in an attempt to push his agenda. There is no true debate for truth. There is a paid blogger that is pushing the agenda of the corporations, who would be the winners if the patent system is destroyed.

          3. 24.1.1.1.3

            Dennis, I was chief IP counsel of a major company and speak from experience. We actively cross licensed competitors and suppliers in our business, and encouraged our engineers to follow the developments of our competitors products and their patents; and copy if they needed. If find it amazing at times to find big companies here in Silicon Valley who do not actively cross license, yet copy nevertheless. What do they expect to happen? A Mexican standoff is not a reliable way of conducting business.

        2. 24.1.1.2

          Malcolm, patent applicants’ statements are on the record. Everything they say can and WILL be used against them in court. If there is a misrepresentation made that obtains the patent, that is a very serious matter both for the patent owner and for his attorney.I have dealt with patent owners asserting patents against my company who were routine liars. The way I treated them was thus:I would point to their lie. Rub their noses in it like one does with a dog. Then I would expel them from my office with some intentionally rude remark.Lying gets one nowhere fast, and very few try to enforce patents obtained by fraud.

          1. 24.1.1.2.1

            Ned is right to some extent – the beauty of our adversarial system of laws is that each side has a strong incentive to uncover any misstatements by their opponents. However, we have to recognize that the patent system does not become truly adversarial until the patent is being enforced. And, by then, a strong presumption of validity is in place to support a carefully structured file history.

            1. 24.1.1.2.1.1

              “routine liars… I would point to their lie. Rub their noses in it like one does with a dog.Then I would expel them from my office with some intentionally rude remark.”“Ned is right to some extent – the beauty of our adversarial system of laws is that each side has a strong incentive to uncover any misstatements by their opponents.”The irony of the above juxtaposition is truly delicious.Should I spell it out, or would the facts be considered an attack? Is being adversarial on these boards to be sacrificed, when truth is shuttered for the sake of what is essentially PC? The laughable part is that the(still missing) comments are replete with the evidence of the following malfeasance: – Misstatements of fact. – Misstatements of law. – Misstatements of what others post. – Strawmen. – Obfuscations. – And the ever-present Accuse-others-of-that-which-one-does.And yet, my posts – unassailable in their truth – are the posts subjected to ‘evaluation.’ It is truly funny that in all of the conversations, in all of the adversarial exchanges, those with a certain anti-patent view are shown to be the ones who lack support in facts and law, and those are the ones that engage in unwarranted disreputable tactics.Misstatements by my opponents galore – my pointing out misstatements? Well, that will be expunged (did I mention old comments? Heck, I pointed out a dozen places in the new comments where the same old tricks are still being used, just check out the innocuous markers I placed by the offending comments. Oops, so sorry, those markers were removed). Ask yourself, dear readers, what is the evident ‘strong incentive’ on these boards? A “I don’t’ know what it means to be intellectually honest?” approach, coupled with a clearly unevenly applied ‘norm,’ or a rampantly overrun particular viewpoint being espoused?Reminds me of the adage: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table. To which I would add, if your table folds like paper, employ a Crybaby Veto (maybe with fancy new software). After all, being adversarial and highlighting your opponents misstatements has no place in throwing aside the curtain and seeing the great and wonderful Oz, does it?

      2. 24.1.2

        you have an idea, it seems, that patent owners lie and infringers tell the truth.When you say “infringers”, I assume you mean people that a patent owner suspects are practicing his patent method or using a patented composition.At this point it’s becoming safer to say that everyone in the United States is or will be an “infringer” of some j*nk patent floating out there. And of course some of those people will lie about that. Why is that such an important consideration? If it affects you personally, because you own a patent this “liar” is infringing, then take them to court. The court will treat them just like any other “liar.” Such people pose no problems whatsoevers for 99.999% of the population. But that’s not true for the liars who obtain and aggressively assert their patents. They are a problem for everybody.

        1. 24.1.2.1

          Perhaps the take-away here is to recognize that studies have shown time-and-again that most people see the world in self-interested ways. This results in both conscious and (more commonly subconscious) misrepresentations. The law recognizes this in our rules of evidence where we typically require some form of proof before believing any factual or legal claim. An operable system will find ways to efficiently cut-through those misrepresentations as they come.

          1. 24.1.2.1.1

            An operable system will find ways to efficiently cut-through those misrepresentations as they come.Agreed. And an operaable (and just) legal system will take into account the differences between those who write the “laws” (in this case, the patent claims) and/or decide which of those laws are enforced, on one hand, and those who are targetted by those laws on the other.What has happened with the US patent system, very steadily and predictably, very much resembles what has happened to the US economy generally. Wealth and property is concentrated more and more in the hands of fewer people, who in nearly ever case were already among the wealthy and privileged members of society, and who then leverage their power to divert even more money into their own pockets. Nothing is “promoted” or “produced” by such broken system except “innovation” in legal maneuvering, and it’s all at the expense of ordinary people who are increasingly the direct targets of the patent grifting class.Even in a vacuum this turn of events would be troubling but it’s made much more frustrating by the relentless insistance by supporters of the status quo (invariably current or wanna-be stakeholders) that these developments should be welcomed by everyone because without them, we are told, we might as well all throw our computers in the sea and return to an “agrarian economy”. And so we see rich, self-interested “experts” endlessly trotted out to mock any objectors as either “naive” or, worse, as thieving “copyists” who “don’t want to pay for anything.” The defenders of patent trolls seem to believe that dissenters should simply “take their medicine” and not complain because, hey, “it’s legal” and somewhere those super smart, “non-lazy” “innovating” “job-creating” people who “deserve” their wealth will make sure that everything is just fine, and that all those “lazy” people continue to get punished appropriately. Thankfully, the most vocal defenders of the trolls are incredibly out of touch and seem incapable of understanding how they are perceived by the public, or they are simply so desperate to preserve the status quo by any means necessary that they’ve ceased to care.

            1. 24.1.2.1.1.1

              I think ive got your angle. Get rid of the trolls and big corps can make invention concievers into subserviant slaves instead of independent business partners as they should be

                1. …

                  Why should they be thus? Yes indeed why shouldent invention concievers be the owner and the corp boses be the subservs. Its all about the money monopoly that the 1%ers control with a stranglehold. And without my stolen previous art conceptions the corps wouldent exist none of them. And with reasonable priced capitol for loans then who needs to partner with the IP thieve corps to begin with.

    2. 24.2

      I’m tired of every example of a ‘junk” patent being from the computer or business methods area. We know why so many of those patents are poor quality – the PTO was hit with a mandate to grant patents in those areas without the resources that existed in traditional fields (e.g., skilled examiners – you couldn’t even use a degree in computer science to become a patent agent or attorney , reference materials, etc.). As a previous commenter noted, “Trolls” are effectively the same as contingency lawyers. Explain to an independent inventor that they shouldn’t be able to sell their invention to anyone but a company in the industry who, if he or she were to ever send a cease and desist letter to, could kill the suit (or at least 99% of them) by merely filing a declaratory judgment in a jurisdiction outside the inventor’s home district. The anti-troll comments just assume that the patents are worthless – I don’t think that assumption is warranted beyond what I discussed above, but even if it is, why attack the inventors rather than the PTO? And what disclosures do property buyers make that patent owners don’t? Non-publicly traded corporations buy land: the public doesn’t know all the owners. The property itself is described by the deed and/or the patent.

      1. 24.2.1

        It is easy to find junk patents in any field. It is just that there are paid bloggers on this board that put the information processing patents up for display as they have an agenda to push that they are paid to push by corporations.The problem is who has time to fight with these paid bloggers? They ignore reality and real points and just push on to the next bullet point on the sheets that are prepared for them by their supervisors. And don’t be naive there was a job advertisement on this board for paid bloggers and a supervisor paid blogger to keep track of the bullet points to post.

    1. 23.1

      Section 9 of the FTC Act authorizes the Commission to “require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of all such documentary evidence relating to any matter under investigation” (15 U.S.C. Sec. 49). Similarly, Section 6(b) empowers the Commission to require the filing of “annual or special * * * reports or answers in writing to specific questions” for the purpose of obtaining information about “the organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations, partnerships, and individuals” of the entities to whom the inquiry is addressed.

      1. 23.1.1

        Thanks. I’m just not entirely sure that those two distinct, separate authorizations empower the FTC to use subpoenas outside of matters under investigation.

      2. 23.1.2

        “use its subpoena power of to require the assertion entities to provide information to the agency and address the following questions” – witch hunt? “McCarthyism”. I would see “under investigation” as relating to an existing violation, not something like this, which is analogous to review for rule-making?

    2. 23.2

      link to ftc.gov…Section 6(b) empowers the Commission to require the filing of “annual or special * * * reports or answers in writing to specific questions” for the purpose of obtaining information about “the organization, business, conduct, practices, management, and relation to other corporations, partnerships, and individuals” of the entities to whom the inquiry is addressed. As with subpoenas and CIDs, the recipient of a 6(b) ordermay file a petition to limit or quash, and the Commission may seek a court order requiring compliance. In addition, the Commission may commence suit in Federal court under Section 10 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 50, against any party who fails to comply with a 6(b) order after receiving a notice of default from the Commission. After expiration of a thirty-day grace period, the defaulting party is liable for a penalty of $110(4) for each day of noncompliance.The Commission’s 6(b) authority enables it to conduct wide-ranging economic studies that do not have a specific law enforcement purpose.

  18. 22

    6 posted this below; worth a re-post as it features a favorite jurist of mine:link to techdirt.com…the “single employee” of NPS [troll shell companyy] is listed as Gregory Cuke, who is described as the “director of business development.” Back in reality, Alsup points out that in Cuke’s deposition, he admits that he’s not actually the director of business development, but is actually a real estate broker for various office buildings — and is the landlord for the nearly empty one-room “office” that NPS claims is its home base. But, every so often, he’s asked to sign various legal documents and he does so.Alsup dings NPS (and specifically Ramde and Lam) for “stonewalling and obfuscation” in basically trying to do everything possible to avoid handing over the sale-and-assignment agreement which was signed too late.NPS has continued in the form of sandbagging with newly-produced documents and infringement contentions that attack over 70 Fortinet products without supplying claim charts. The other order found that NPS’s counsel have played fast and loose with the rules for being admitted to practice pro hac vice in this district. It held that an attorney for NPS had violated our local rules 11-1 and 11-3by appearing i11 three depositions prior to filing his pro hac vice application and denied his applicationThere’s much more of that good stuff behind the link.Maybe Judge Newman can step in and explain to Judge Alsup that he hasn’t proved that these activities were “intended” to be misleading.

    1. 22.1

      Fyi, Alsup leads off his order by quoting the recent op-ed of Judge Rader and Professors Chien and Hricick.

  19. 21

    There are lots of professional and big MNC companies that are present in many countries. Site is helpful for those who want to search international jobs for working in international companies. Various big companies are located in many countries. Site offers online thousands of job search by categories and resume posting for jobs.

    link to theindiajob.com

  20. 20

    I invented every thing of significance since since 1953.Such as computer software all major software concepts Dvd cd and every individual electronic part of the computer except my grandfathers stuff before 1953. Also original computer 1954 burroughs computer chip micro processor pentium processor personal computer lap top fiberoptic cable internet concept ect ect ect. in other words the top 10000.

  21. 19

    “JAOI . . . By The way what did you invent?”

    JAOI invented software that generates pithy patriotic quotes at the touch of a button.

  22. 18

    JAOI Cant blame you for your skeptical humor this is a huge case of high level corruption in and out of patent office some 217 years old in this country.Then back in history to the egyptions 2500bc.For those predijucial or belligerent it will do no good to call because it takes two weeks of listening to even begin to believe it and you dont appear to be a patient man. By The way what did you invent?

  23. 17

    Dear Michael R. Thomas arguably the worlds only inventor of signifence,

    Ring, Ring… Ring, Ring

    Is anybody there?, anybody, Beuller?

    I’ll try again after 5 and I’m off work; will you be a round then or flat?

  24. 16

    to JAOI No seriously for the (correct inventing line not who the patent office issues to) on all inventions of significance call for the real story on how it was invented. Most I have pulled back into memory for discussion.

  25. 15

    Dear real anonymous,

    Thank you. It took some doing, I’ll say. Mr. Thomas is a real pips.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I couldn’t to this job (job?) if I didn’t laugh a lot, else I’d be crying and mean most of the time.

  27. 13

    Examiner,

    Just being a patent examiner will help you get a job in patent law your 1L summer. Passing the patent bar is probably not necessary for you at this point, and as noted, may harm. Just taking the exam itself is not cheap and I recommend waiting until the firm you eventually work for will pay the cost. My own experience – I took it during my third year and my firm said it wouldn’t cover the cost b/c I was not an associate at the time.

    You can probably mitigate any assumption that you only want to do patent law by leaving your patent bar passage off of your resume. Or by saying upfront you are not that interested in it; after all, you already know what it’s about, and learning what kind of law you want to practice is one point of the 1L and 2L summer job (besides income, I mean).

  28. 12

    Dear Michael R. Thomas arguably the worlds only inventor of signifence,

    Yes, Yes okay, I trust what you say, A1 lauwyer would no’t say anthing or notinig but what is Just so, of course.

    Ok, youse guys, you herd it, liten up and enJoy Joy & your enlightenment & by all means, be happie.

    That’s what makes life interesting VARIETY, many views on the same b/w subject.

    And toleration for others’ views is what makes us all so civil, no matter how wrong they obviously are.

  29. 11

    JAOI Wile invention of significance happens only to myself hundreds of thousands of what pto considers inventions occur yearly product protection or thicket patents attempt to retard progressive invention and control markets. Vague and evasive filings attempt to steal invention by restricting catigories of invention. Patenting of instructions and design changes all have the common denominator of producing no new marketable products. They also Have no marketable value. Their only value is to the company issued to therefore they are trash patents clogging our system wile delaying the issue of important patents of significance.For genuine invention contact wwwinventingcreator.net arguably your only source of unseen unherd of original major inventions.This makes the list of actual inventors very short.

  30. 10

    Examiner: it won’t particularly help, especially if you have an engineering degree (and/or relevant experience) on your resume. Do something fun 1L year, don’t work for a firm. For the patent bar, wait until 2L summer, do good work and get an offer, then negotiate for the firm to pay for your studies and take the patent bar 3L. In the meantime, get good grades; that will open many more doors than a registration number will.

  31. 9

    “I just had all of the engineering degrees and work on my resume, and I was told point blank by general practice firms that they assumed that I was going to want to do patent law.”

    Law firm attorneys reveal themselves to be the lamest sorts of dumbaxxes sometimes. Do they turn down English majors because they assume they want to do copyright law?

    Similarly, I’ve heard complaints from attorneys *in* law firms getting “boxed out” of doing some work because they have Ph.D.s. The “logic” is that a lawyer with a Ph.D. in, e.g., quantum chemistry, is somehow less capable of performing certain tasks than a lawyer with a bachelor’s degree in history.

    The real explanation is a combination of ignorance and insecurity on the part of the partners in these firms, most of whom stopped learning math in 9th grade.

    Btw, here’s some amusing Easter-themed patents to ponder:

    link to blawgit.com

  32. 8

    Examiner, if you want a job in patent law, passing the patent bar will help get you in.

    You should also be aware, however, that having the patent bar on your resume will cause firms without a patent group to pass you over.

    That was my experience anyway, and I hadn’t even taken the patent bar. I just had all of the engineering degrees and work on my resume, and I was told point blank by general practice firms that they assumed that I was going to want to do patent law.

  33. 7

    “This may be off topic, but I am starting law school next year and was wondering if taking the patent bar exam before school started would help me get a job during my 1L summer?
    Thanks,
    Examiner”

    Taking it won’t. Passing it might.

  34. 6

    If he deemed me qualified, I’d rather work as a paralegal for Spencer Hosie, Esq. at Hosie McArthur LLP. Below are excerpts are from his brilliant tell-it-like-it-is article titled “DEFENDING THE TROLLS” which was circulated Monday (3/24/08) in “IP Law 360” published by Portfolio Media, Inc. http://www.law360.com :

    “… VERY EFFECTIVE LOBBYING. Organizations like the “Coalition for Patent Fairness,” and the “Business Software Alliance,” have done a remarkably effective job disparaging the patent system generally. [emphasis added; insert: Yes, of course, Cisco Systems, Inc. is a member of “Business Software Alliance”]

    “The ceaseless drumbeat about patent trolls and extortionate litigation has made a difference, as evidenced by the effort to ensure “patent reform” in Washington. … to impugne the entire system is both deceptive and unfair.

    “The irony in all this, of course, is that the question of troll status is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. Is IBM a troll if it enforces patents it does not practice? …

    “… But what do the merits of a patent claim have to do with whether the plaintiff practices the patent, or once did but no longer does?

    “It seems SELF-EVIDENT that the value of a patent should not depend on who owns the claim; there are good patents and there are bad patents. [emphasis added] …

    “And if an IBM seeks to enforce a bad patent, it should not get a free ride simply because it is IBM.

    “AT THE END OF THE DAY, EITHER WE RESPECT AND PROTECT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR WE DO NOT. AND IF WE DO NOT, INNOVATION ITSELF WILL BE THE LOSER.” [emphasis added]

    The author of this tell-it-like-it-is article titled “DEFENDING THE TROLLS,”
    “Spencer Hosie, founded what is now Hosie McArthur LLP. In addition to his active trial practice, he serves as advisor to the American Law Institute, Restatement of Torts: Liability for Economic Loss.”

    These excerpts were posted by a commenter called “They call me “SELF-EVIDENCE” (but that is probably only a nickname) on the “Patent Troll Tracker & Cisco’s New Blog Policy” thread – the link goes to one of my loudly outspoken comments on that thread:

    link to patentlyo.com

  35. 5

    This may be off topic, but I am starting law school next year and was wondering if taking the patent bar exam before school started would help me get a job during my 1L summer?
    Thanks,
    Examiner

  36. 4

    JAOI,

    Large corporations churn out hundreds of inventions they want patented, each year. We have an endless stream of patents to draft for various large clients.

  38. 2

    to-just an ordinary inventor There is way way more attorneys than inventors of significance there has been only four since 1790 and only possibly eight total in history.

  39. 1

    Why do I get the impression that there are more patent attorneys than inventors?

    What about listing listings for inventors?

Comments are closed.