Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law

About Anthony McCain

Anthony McCain is a law student at Mizzou where he is focusing on intellectual property; He has a background in mechanical engineering.

23 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. 3

    Personalized User Model v. Google

    Oral arguments were earlier this week. Check out these facts.

    PUM sued Google on some junky “personalized interface” patent. No idea how much they were asking for, probably hundreds of millions. In addition to finding no infringement, the district court found that the patents were invalid. But here’s the best part: during discovery, Google deduced that the (non)-inventor breached his employment contract and at least some of PUM’s “technology” was wrongfully taken from the inventor’s company. Google then purchased the right to countersue PUM for the breach of contract and won that battle at district court as well. Ouch.

    The issue on appeal was whether the company from which the “technology” was taken should have known that the contract had been breached (thereby tolling the statute of limitations). Sounded to me like Google was going to win this one.

    There’s really nothing quite like bragging about how awesome and “innovative” you are while waving around a junky invalid non-infringed patent based on work product that you don’t even own.

    1. 3.1

      Why do you feel the need to be negative in the way you characterize these companies? Are you naturally this negative? Is there some “sin” these companies are performing? The amount of pure hat red you have for these companies is, to me, shocking.

      You could’ve written this entire post in a way that illustrated why you think the claims are bad (which I don’t see in the post at all, by the way), and yet not filled with nega tivity. There’s really no reason to be so negative.

      Seriously, when is the last time you’ve been to a physician and had a screening for depression? The only person I know who is as negative as you are has clinical — and horrible — depression. Nothing she says is positive. I find you have the same characteristics.

      1. 3.1.1

        You could’ve written this entire post in a way that illustrated why you think the claims are bad

        Right. Or I could just tell you that the district court invalidated them and, as far as I can tell, the invalidity decision isn’t even being appealed. That fact, plus the fact that “personalized interface” patents, like “personalized greeting card” patents, are invariably junky means that I don’t need to spend much time sp00nfeeding the details to you. Look the claims up yourself and defend them to everyone here if it matters that much to you. I was interested in the counterclaim filed by Google so that’s what I focused on.

        Why do you feel the need to be negative in the way you characterize these companies?

        A company that behaves like Personalized User Model behaves deserves to be characterized negatively. They deserve to have their behavior highlighted and criticized in the strongest possible terms.

        What would you prefer — we all just sit back and let bad actors behave badly because, hey, “that’s what they do”? That’s a rhetorical question, obviously.


          The reflection is unmistakable:

          A [poster] that behaves like [Malcolm] behaves deserves to be characterized negatively. They deserve to have their behavior highlighted and criticized in the strongest possible terms.

          The rhetorical question is also reflected.


            “anon” A [poster] that behaves like [Malcolm] behaves deserves to be characterized negatively.

            Last time I checked I didn’t take IP from my employer, obtain an invalid patent with it, and then try to extort money from Google with the patent based on a fabricated infringement theory.

            But in the muddy backwaters of false equivalence where you and your cohorts gleefully splash about I suppose none of that matters.


            Hey, have you seen the anonymous comedian at your favorite blog whining about how he can’t “feed his family” thanks to patent reform? Truly funny stuff. Only in America.

  2. 2

    Dr. Kristina Lybecker: IP Rights Are Critical To Improving Public Health

    Quote: “Intellectual property rights may be the worst form of incentivizing innovation, except for all those other forms that have been tried. Until a better system is devised, we should be extremely wary of those who suggest we abandon what works.”

    Ah, there’s nothing like a WWII-era Winston Churchill paraphrase/dogwhistle to confirm that the author is really thinking deeply about the subject.

    Look, what’s happening with the TPP is that really wealthy and powerful people are trying to cling to or expand their wealth and power. Ironically, it’s the absence of much “democracy” surrounding the TPP Agreement negotiations that troubles the critics of IP rights expansion within the Agreement.

    The weirdest part is when Lybecker suggests that “incentivizing” drug innovation (?!?) is the answer to “NCDs” aka “non communicable diseases.” We’re talking about lung cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease here. The article that on NCD’s that Lybecker links to provides this key quote:

    [H]ow should NCDs be tackled? There is no shortage of knowledge with respect to the best ways to do this. Dietary changes (for example, reduced consumption of salt and increased consumption of fruit and vegetables); increased physical activity; cessation of smoking and harmful use of alcohol (perhaps by increased tobacco and alcohol taxes, and through information, education and communication campaigns); and transforming medical training to address the changing nature of disease burdens

    Do any of those solutions necessitate expanding or even “solidifying” IP protection for drug companies in any way? Of course not.

  3. 1

    Try to believe the chutzpah of this sad patent troll, suing the US government to the tune of over a $1 billion dollars, to be paid for by you and me.


    This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/271,744, filed on Oct. 17, 2002, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/393,942, filed on Jul. 8, 2002

    1. A security system comprising:

    an imaging device positioned at a secured location;

    means, associated with a security system central station, for receiving and processing realtime imagery generated by said imaging device and received over a communications link; and

    means, associated with an emergency response agency, for receiving, processing and displaying realtime imagery generated by said imaging device and received over a communications link from the central station.

    Quote of the Year: “[E]xploiting these patents without a license cripples our ability to survive as a small business,” said Offie Wiseman, co-owner of 3rd Eye Surveillance.

    So we all need to pony and give >$1 billion dollars to li’l Offie Wiseman and his buddies in their “small business” who apparently believe they own the concept of “real time communications”. But wait! It’s communication for “security”. That makes a huge difference because using information for security is, like, totally different from using information for other purposes. Riiiiight.

    What a joke of a patent system.

    1. 1.1

      Please feel free to publish your banking information if you think that “secrecy” is not an important distinction.

      Literally – put your money where your mouth is or kindly Stfu.

      1. 1.1.1

        “secrecy” is not an important distinction.

        The status of information being communicated is certainly completely irrelevant to the new, non-obvious communication technology being claimed. Of course, that assumes there is new, non-obvious technology being claimed which is a huge assumption in our broken patent system.

        A sane patent system would never, ever be concerned with the abstract status conferred upon the content being transmitted. “Cartoon content”, “secret content”, “grandma’s favorite video content”, “copyrighted content”, “contracted content”, “Billy’s spring break credit card content”, etc. What in heck difference could it possibly make?

        Unless perhaps we’re not talking about an attempt to protect new technology but some ridiculous, transparent attempt to protect something else. And make everybody in the country pay for it.

        These guys are scumbags.


          Emphasizing your error by repeating it is, well, only emphasizing your error.

          Step up Malcolm, let’s see that bank information since secrecy has no distinction for you.

          Yep, thought so.


            secrecy has no distinction for you.

            Somehow this “anon” character has difficult distinguishing “a patent system” designed to promote progress in technology, on one hand, from “me”, a human being born in the United States.

            Such a strange difficulty, but often expressed.

            Human beings may make super dooper important behavior-altering distinctions between water from a tap and the same water after it’s blessed by their local holy person. But a sane patent system doesn’t make such distinctions. There’s great reasons for that.


              What is your point?

              You still do not address my counter point.

              Try using those short declarative sentences that you are always on about.

      2. 1.1.2

        The claim doesn’t say anything about secrecy, as far as I can tell.
        It says that the imaging device is positioned at a secure location – my house is a secure location, as is my office, so that’s not a very limiting phrase.


          my house is a secure location, as is my office, so that’s not a very limiting phrase.

          Surely one skilled in the art would understand “secure location” to be limited to the type of location that the infringer uses which is totally different from all the locations in the prior art.

    2. 1.3

      associated with an emergency response agency,

      Reasonable people will and should puke when they see this kind of garbage recited in a patent claim.

    3. 1.4

      Seems like any sort of CCTV system that simultaneously records at a central location (processing) and relays to another location could read on this, but it’s hard to say without reading the spec; invokes 112 6th.

      I’m pretty sure I saw this in a secret agent movie, though.

      1. 1.4.1

        billy, filing date July 8, 2002. A very long time ago. When did you watch your movie?

        Mind you, in the pre-2002 world of night watchmen, sitting in a control room (in a “central station”) watching a CCTV screen, was it never the case that one supervisor (at a “control agency”) monitored screens from more than one such central station. Perhaps on the bridge of a warship, or on behalf of a large industrial estate?

        Perhaps the problem for the USPTO in such cases is how adequately to search the non-patent prior art?


          Hi wonde what happens when MaxDrei throws the (dung) of science fiction against the wall/


          (perhaps this merely signifies long-felt need…)


          July 8, 2002. A very long time ago.

          Ancient times! Real-time communications were in their infancy, then, perhaps only half a century old.

          Here’s a Columbo from 1975 where the villain employs more creativity than the bottom-feeder who filed this patent:

          link to

          Van Wick has already set in motion a scheme to murder his angry mother-in-law, recording her demise on video tape while feeding a recording of an empty study to the guard monitoring the estate’s rooms on television screens at the gate to the Van Wick estate.

          That was only a quarter century before this junk was filed.

    4. 1.5

      MM, there may be some inventions described in the specification and “claimed” because of these MPF clauses, but one reading the claims cannot tell what that is. Assuming such, this claim, invalid as all get out on its face, still might be valid after construed.

      But that only goes to illustrate the fact that 112(f) inherently causes claims to be indefinite. We really need to repeal 112(f).

Comments are closed.