Comments on: Haptic Feedback Patents: Some Survive Eligibility Challenge by Fitbit https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html America's leading patent law blog Mon, 18 Jun 2018 05:38:26 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.6 By: anon https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-403066 Sat, 10 Mar 2018 12:16:03 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-403066 It’s too bad this dialogue was derailed.

I am now reviewing the U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge case and that case could have served as an interesting discussion point (whether or not Marty attended law school).

Maybe we will have a chance at a dialogue when Oil States is released.

]]>
By: Insert_Witty_Patent_Pun https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402917 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 16:46:30 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402917 Sorry for my delay. I think you get the gist of our system. The following summary discusses only the federal level. There is a completely different system of courts in each of our 50 states, but we’ll just ignore them because patents are governed by federal law. We have three branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial–all of which have limited and nominally defined powers. The USPTO is part of the Executive branch. Inside the USPTO, we have PTAB patent law judges that hear only patent cases. The question in PTAB trials is whether the patent should have ever issued in the first place. These are our only specialized judges.

The Judicial branch has three levels. The trial courts are called the District Courts, the intermediate appellate courts are called the Circuit Courts of Appeal, and the final appellate court is the US Supreme Court. The judges serving on these courts are generalists. A patent case can be started in any District Court in which the court has jurisdiction over the defendant, although most cases are either filed in the Eastern District of Texas or the District of Delaware. No matter where the patent case is started, though, all appeals must be taken to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). That court handles more than just patent cases, but Congress created it to unify the interpretation of the patent law in the 1980’s. If at least one party is unhappy with the outcome at the CAFC, that party may petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears, and this writ is the manner in which it accepts an appeal. Again, the Supreme Court justices are generalists.

In short, the only way to truly get a specialist “judge” in the US is to proceed in the PTAB. However, many of us who practice patent prosecution see that body and its rules as somewhat unfavorable to the patentee. Also, the proceedings are adversarial no matter the court in which they take place. So the judges are not supposed to interject their own special knowledge into the proceedings, even if they have such specialized knowledge.

Thanks for sharing information about the Chinese system. I prosecute patent applications there, but I have not been involved in litigation in China yet.

]]>
By: anon https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402888 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 03:59:06 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402888 but many, many people think they should be, because technology is magic

Marty – you have that exactly backwards.

Those that understand that there is NO magic are the ones that understand why patent eligibility is proper.

It is ONLY those that try to hold out for “magic,” that employ the “it’s a witch” type of thinking that get the patent eligibility issue all messed up.

There is NO indolence in my observations of the emotions driving your animus.

Quite the opposite in fact, as probably most people wouldn’t bother at all with why you feel as you feel.

Care for a third strike?

]]>
By: Mingyan https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402877 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:51:33 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402877 Your further comments are well appreciated.

]]>
By: Mingyan https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402875 Thu, 08 Mar 2018 01:49:44 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402875 Hi Insert_Witty_Patent_Pun,

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. I am an China patent attorney (in-house) dealing with my company’s US and EP patent applications frequently for a few years. I also had worked in US on patent prosecution for several years. So you are right that I have had little interaction. Based on your explanation, I understand it like this: normal judges (judges who don’t work at the several famous “patent courts”) hear the arguments of each party in the case and then make a decision based on the arguments and the judges’ knowledge (limited) on patent law. If this is the case, it is similar to the situation in China. In addition, China now has several IP courts having judges working specially in IP areas.

]]>
By: Martin H Snyder https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402843 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:36:26 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402843 Ohfergawdsakes  my paper has zero to do with the particulars of any of my several encounters with the patent system.

It’s a very specific policy suggestion- i.e. a compromise with people who can’t quit on logic/information being the innovative elements of patented inventions.

Logic and information should not be patent eligible subject matter, but many, many people think they should be, because technology is magic. Since they will likely never give it up, my proposal limits the damage and makes reasonable philosophical sense based on the actual meaning of the word abstract and relationship of symbols to people in the world.

Anybody a wee bit less indolent than anon can look up public records related to litigation I was involved in, and make their own judgement about those merits, which have, again, nothing to do with my advocacy beyond the impetus to spark my interest.

]]>
By: anon https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402823 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 20:49:18 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402823 Even “before the electrons are dry” STILL does not make any sense (you are perhaps presupposing some type of “negation” which is just not present).

]]>
By: anon https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402822 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 20:48:07 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402822 He has written a paper “on the matter.”

Unfortunately, he has dived deep into the weeds and attempts to expound on the law as he would have it, rather than on any objective view of the facts of his particular situation in regards to the law as actually written by Congress.

That, and the fact that his settlement agreement precludes him from discussing those very same objective facts and actual application of law prevents him from meaningfully sharing the very thing that you ask for.

]]>
By: Night Writer https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402815 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 19:51:59 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402815 Martin,

I understand you are very upset about troubles your company has had with patents. It would be interesting to see you write this up in a paper. Maybe you should focus on what you know. It would be interesting to see from a software developer perspective why some patents shouldn’t be able to be asserted.

]]>
By: Martin H Snyder https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/03/feedback-eligibility-challenge.html#comment-402814 Wed, 07 Mar 2018 19:41:48 +0000 https://patentlyo.com/?p=22644#comment-402814 autocorrect- should have been electrons

]]>