Patent Eligibility and Failing to State a Claim for Patent Infringement

by Dennis Crouch

TS Patents v. Yahoo! Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)

In this case, TS patents (inventor Sheng Tai Tsao) has asserted four patents against Yahoo!: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,280,547 (“the ’547 patent”); 8,799,473 (“the ’473 patent”); 8,713,442 (“the ’442 patent”); and 8,396,891 (“the ʼ891 patent”).  All four patents are related to remote hosting.  When a user logs-in, the system creates a per-user-session hierarchical folder list that is sent to the user’s local device.  When a user logs-out, the hierarchical list is deleted from memory.  (2002 priority dates).

The district court found all the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 following the Alice/Mayo test as applied to abstract ideas.  In Alice Step-Two, the district court concluded that the claimed elements and arrangements were all “conventional” and “generic.”  In particular, the district court dismissed the case on the pleadings — ruling that the patent is so clearly invalid that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim (Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 12(b)(6)).  At that stage, the district court did not consider any evidence or expressly draw factual conclusions.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion (R.36).

In its new en banc petition, TS Patent has asked the Federal Circuit to reconsider in light of its recent decisions in Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir
2018).  Leading attorney Matthew Dowd writes:

When a U.S. patent—in particular, a patent issued after Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)—states that the claimed computer-based invention yields technical improvements over existing systems, can a district court make factual findings contrary to the patent’s specification at the pleading stage and dismiss a complaint for patent infringement under Rule 12(b)(6)?

TSPatentEnBanc.  The Federal Circuit is struggling internally with this issue, but I do not expect TS to get a majority of the judges — especially since Judges Newman and Linn were on the original R.36 panel.

What is the right answer here: Our system needs a relatively quick and cheap way to cancel patents that are clearly invalid and should not have issued.  Without a better solution, the Supreme Court functionally blessed this approach — although effective it has some major defects.  Barring major revisions of eligibility analysis, the better approach here is to open the window for post-grant review proceedings.

76 thoughts on “Patent Eligibility and Failing to State a Claim for Patent Infringement

  1. 9

    The criticism of ” factual findings contrary to the patent’s specification at the pleading stage” re Alice depends of course on what is actually IN the specification, and what are the necessary factual findings, which are also controlled by what is actually claimed, and the claim breadth, in the claims in suit.

    1. 9.1

      Good point Paul.

      I would also add that facts may also be stipulated by the Office, and that such stipulations may be binding on the Office.

      1. 9.1.1

        That reminds me: when is Director “Appointed by a Criminal” Iancu going to publish the PTOs factual findings regarded what computer technology is “conventional” as of, say, 2010?

        That would seem like something important to take care of.

        such stipulations may be binding on the Office

        Because why? Can the US government not “stipulate to” contrary “facts” in different pending cases?

        Are corporations likewise “bound” by statements made under oath during the prosecution of patents that the corporations own? Or do they get a pass because … $?

        1. 9.1.1.1

          This type of stipulation would be party-specific and subject-specific meaning that it would bind, if at all, the Applicant and the PTO only with respect to that patent/application.

          1. 9.1.1.1.1

            …a point we may actually agree upon. Shocking.

            0h wait, you are bashing Malcolm. Hmm, not so shocking then, eh?

  2. 8

    Claim 1 from the first patent:

    1. A server supporting a plurality of users access to remote folder structures, the server comprising:

    memory, and

    non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code which, being executed by the server, configures the server to:

    create a first per user-session hierarchical list in the memory for a user session initiated via a first end-user device by a first one of the users for access to a folder structure served by the server, the first hierarchical list representing the folder structure in a reduced form, the folder structure comprising one or more folders, where each of the one or more folders is used for holding at least one data object, send a user interface comprising the first hierarchical list to the first end-user device to be displayed thereon, the displayed first hierarchical list being navigated by the first one of the users to request access to the folder structure;

    process the request for access to the folder structure received from the first end-user device, wherein the program code to process the request includes to update the folder structure, and also update the first hierarchical list in the memory to reflect the updated folder structure in accordance to the request, wherein the server sends an updated user interface comprising the updated first hierarchical list to the first end-user device to be displayed thereon during the user session, and deletes the first hierarchical list from the memory in response to exit of the user session.

    This claim involves a permissions-based security mechanism for a device, which determines whether requests to access certain objects should or should not be granted based on the user’s privileges.

    The general field of technology has a clear impact on the performance of the device: implementing user account privileges to files and folders.

    This claim involves a specific data structure to represent the items to which the user is granted access. The claim recites (1) the step of creating it at the time of login and (2) the step of using it to evaluate requests.

    The claimed technique has a clear advantage in this field of technology: expediting the evaluation so that user requests can be fulfilled faster (vs. making the privileges determination ad-hoc for each request).

    Want to see the significance of this type of technique?

    (1) Get yourself a NAS and connect it to your network.

    (2) Make a folder with a lot of small files. Let’s say: 10,000 1-byte files.

    (3) Apply a permission to the account.

    (4) Copy the folder over the network to a local computer.

    Watch in amazement as the NAS chugs veerrrrrrryyyy slllloowwwwllly through the transfer of every single 1-byte file. The bottleneck is not network transfer rates: it’s partly the permission check on every single file. Using this technique to generate a permissions structure for the user at the time of login, and then use that permissions structure to speed up the privileges check for each file, may provide a very significant performance boost.

    Yet, both the district court and the Federal Circuit panel doubted the technical merit of this invention so much that they granted and affirmed dismissal as a matter of law.

    The courts say that patent-eligibility is based upon “improving the functionality of the computer itself.” Then they turn around and invalidate an invention that centrally and unambiguously does that. 101 law is broken.

    1. 8.1

      I want to give 1000 blind people permission to tie my shoes. Who can solve this problem? Giving them permission one by one is soooooooooooooooo slow!

      Very deep stuff. You have one week to solve this thorny problem.

    2. 8.2

      “Permissions structures” = j0ke

      1. 8.2.1

        MM = “Permissions structures”

        1. 8.2.1.1

          Dude, that’s harsh. What did permissions structures ever do to you?

    3. 8.3

      This claim involves a permissions-based security mechanism for a device, which determines whether requests to access certain objects should or should not be granted based on the user’s privileges.

      Does it though? Cause that’s not what you posted.

      The general field of technology has a clear impact on the performance of the device: implementing user account privileges to files and folders.

      Citation to Spec needed. The fact that you post-hoc recognize some benefit now does not mean that is what the invention was for at the time of filing.

      This claim involves a specific data structure to represent the items to which the user is granted access. The claim recites (1) the step of creating it at the time of login and (2) the step of using it to evaluate requests.

      Friendly reminder that Enfish was premised not only on a specific structure but a specific inventive structure. Hierarchical classification is not inventive.

      The claimed technique has a clear advantage in this field of technology: expediting the evaluation so that user requests can be fulfilled faster (vs. making the privileges determination ad-hoc for each request).

      Citation needed.

      Want to see the significance of this type of technique? (1) Get yourself a NAS and connect it to your network. (2) Make a folder with a lot of small files. Let’s say: 10,000 1-byte files. (3) Apply a permission to the account. (4) Copy the folder over the network to a local computer.

      Watch in amazement as the NAS chugs veerrrrrrryyyy slllloowwwwllly through the transfer of every single 1-byte file. The bottleneck is not network transfer rates: it’s partly the permission check on every single file. Using this technique to generate a permissions structure for the user at the time of login, and then use that permissions structure to speed up the privileges check for each file, may provide a very significant performance boost.

      The claim only requires one folder holding one folder holding one data object, so your pulled-from-the-air reasoning doesn’t even apply to the scope.

      Yet, both the district court and the Federal Circuit panel doubted the technical merit of this invention so much that they granted and affirmed dismissal as a matter of law.

      link to youtube.com

      1. 8.3.1

        RG: The claim only requires one folder holding one folder holding one data object, so your pulled-from-the-air reasoning doesn’t even apply to the scope.

        The supposed awesome problem-solving benefits of a substantial portion of these miserable “do it on a computer” claims evaporate when the enormous scope of the claims is appreciated.

        Not that it matters much. Of course data transfer is slower when there is a lot of data being sent and a lot of processing required. Of course data transfer speeds up when shortcuts are taken to permit that processing to occur in bulk. That’s just logical. Too many “permissions” steps are slowing things down? Golly gee how about we reduce the number of permissions steps using a logical method for doing that?

        Expunge this junk from the patent system. Yesterday.

      2. 8.3.2

        “Friendly reminder that Enfish was premised not only on a specific structure but a specific inventive structure. Hierarchical classification is not inventive.”

        Friendly reminder: “inventive” is not properly part of the 101 analysis. For that we use 102 and 103.

        1. 8.3.2.1

          Enfish’s claims were ranked as obvious under 103. They weren’t inventive.

          1. 8.3.2.1.1

            You do realize that if what you say is true, that you have proven Les’s point, right Malcolm?

        2. 8.3.2.2

          ..and yet again (even if Malcolm whines otherwise), there is a case that specifically calls out against conflating the different legal points of patent eligibility and patent-ability.

          You will see this in communications from the Office stating that whether or not something is novel, or whether or not something is non-obvious cannot help one overcome a point as to whether or not something is eligible.

          What the anti’s do not seem to grasp is that THAT is a two-way street. Just as applicants are not allowed to co-mingle the different legal tests, neither is the Office.

          And as – yet again – a reminder, the Act of 1952 was expressly passed to break up the former single paragraph into the separate sections of law of 101/102/103 and REMOVE from the judicial branch the “use of” invention (otherwise known as “Gist of the Invention” or other of DOZENS of monikers) and Congress INSTEAD opted for creating the new section of obviousness in 103.

          Just because the Supreme Court wants to ignore what Congress actually did does not mean that ALL OF US should (or even can) try to do the same.

          1. 8.3.2.2.1

            there is a case that specifically calls out against conflating the different legal points of patent eligibility and patent-ability.

            Whether such a case exists or not, it’s impossible to have a working subject matter eligibility requirement without taking into account the relationship of elements recited in the claim to the prior art.

            If you don’t understand why this is the case in 2018, then you lack the intelligence to discuss the issues. Or you’re a hack, like Gene Quinn (also not a very intelligent person).

            1. 8.3.2.2.1.1

              “Whether such a case exists or not, it’s impossible to have a working subject matter eligibility requirement without taking into account the relationship of elements recited in the claim to the prior art.”

              I guess it depends are your definition of “working.”

              If your using your deep state definition of working: does what every it is we want it to do so that patents get invalidated, then you might have a point.

              However, if working means: determines whether a claim is to a process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter, then that can be done completely free of novelty and obviousness considerations.

              1. 8.3.2.2.1.1.1

                if working means: determines whether a claim is to a process, machine, article of manufacture or composition of matter, then that can be done completely free of novelty and obviousness considerations.

                Literally nobody thinks that’s what 101 means. Most importantly, we know that’s not what the Supreme Court thinks it means. The Supreme Court, in fact, has never thought 101 meant what you wrote. Even the people who wrote 101 didn’t think it meant that or, if they did, then they were drooling kindergartners scribbling with crayons (like the hacks at the AIPLA who wrote that worthless “revised” version of 101).

            2. 8.3.2.2.1.2

              Eligibility is NOT a time-sensitive item.

              Something** does not become ineligible (or for that matter, becomes eligible) based on any construct of time.

              ** definitely for the statutory category aspect of 35 USC 101.

              I can see some argument as to a time-impact for the other aspect of 35 USC 101: utility within the Useful Arts. Alas, such would not be to the benefit of your feelings, as any such time impact would likely be an expansion of items that become realized as being within the Useful Arts. As is widely understood and appreciated (by at least those that understand innovation), tomorrow’s innovations cannot be “silo’ed” by today’s understanding. Which of course is why a proper understanding of 35 USC 101 is as a wide open welcoming gate. Maybe you want to read up on the Kondratiev waves of innovation…

              1. 8.3.2.2.1.2.1

                Eligibility is NOT a time-sensitive item.

                Malpractice alert.

                Folks, this is why you need to choose your patent attorney carefully. Otherwise they’ll run to the bank with your money and leave you holding a piece of paper worth nothing.

                The truth of the matter is that the determination of the eligibility of a claim will necessarily depend, in nearly every case, very heavily on the relationship between the objective structural limitations recited in the claim (which are usually eligible on their own terms, although not necessarily patentable) and the prior art. The prior art, of course, is “time-sensitive.”

                The intelligence required to understand this basic fundamental proposition is about equal to that of your typical 9th grader. Hence “anon” and his enormous difficulties here. Mommy will be along to change his diaper (again) shortly.

                1. You are not paying attention – nowhere am I saying that the patentability (as opposed to patent eligibility) issue lacks a time impact.

              2. 8.3.2.2.1.2.2

                Something** does not become ineligible (or for that matter, becomes eligible) based on any construct of time.

                Of course it does. A system comprising a book and [particular] words written in the book becomes ineligible when it is clear the inventor was claiming to have invented the book. That’s the whole point of the Step 2 conventionality analysis.

                Its one thing if you think you invented the book and are mistaken (i.e. someone invented bookmaking a year or two before you, in which case only a 102/103 is warranted). It’s another thing to acknowledge the book was invented by someone else and your addition to the system is words. Similarly, if the book is invented, exists for hundreds of years, and becomes ubiquitous, the knowledge of the preexistence of the book can be imputed even absent express acknowledgement.

                Again, part of the Alice holding is that the computer + intermediated settlement system was ineligible because of the conventionality of computers. Had the Alice patentee invented the computer processor, the Alice claim would have been eligible.

                1. This has been explained to “anon” since before the Mayo case.

                  Just in case anybody out there is still wondering whether “anon” is tr 0lling this blog.

                2. Your second paragraph is in the weeds. “Becoming ubiquitous” does not change eligibility for the fact that eligibility is not time dependent as I posted. Once eligible, the proper rejection is (and ever shall be) 102/103. Passage of time does not — cannot — move the 102/103 rejection into being a (PROPER) 101 rejection.

                  And no, your comment about if Alice invented the processor, then “OK” is wrong.

                3. Passage of time does not — cannot — move the 102/103 rejection into being a (PROPER) 101 rejection.

                  Do you realize how ridiculous you sound right now?

                  We’re talking about patent law.

                4. YOU are not talking about patent law, Malcolm.

                  You are talking about how you wish patent law were to be.

                  There is a huge difference.

                  Maybe you can scream loud enough about your First Amendment rights and move 102/103 into 101 that way…

          2. 8.3.2.2.2

            Again: Enfish’s claims were determined to be obvious.

            Do a Google search. It was discussed on some silly blog somewhere.

            1. 8.3.2.2.2.1

              You really want to make Les’s point, eh?

        3. 8.3.2.3

          Friendly reminder: “inventive” is not properly part of the 101 analysis. For that we use 102 and 103.

          I don’t have time to teach law to every lawyer. Please read your cases on 101 before discussing 101.

          Enfish: As noted infra, in Bilski and Alice and virtually all of the computer-related § 101 cases we have issued in light of those Supreme Court decisions, it was clear that the claims were of the latter type — requiring that the analysis proceed to the second step of the Alice inquiry, which asks if nevertheless there is some inventive concept in the application of the abstract idea. See Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355, 2357-59.

          Alice: We have described step two of this analysis as a search for an “`inventive concept'” — i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id., at ___, 132 S.Ct., at 1294.

          1. 8.3.2.3.1

            It’s manifestly clear that if the inventor in Alice had invented the computer (rather than simply using an already-invented computer to process a fundamental type of information) the claim would have been eligible. Inventive clearly has bearing on Step 2.

            1. 8.3.2.3.1.1

              manifestly clear….?

              No. You are manifestly wrong.

              My Gob (as Malcolm might exclaim), you are an examiner?

              1. 8.3.2.3.1.1.1

                manifestly clear….?

                No. You are manifestly wrong.

                Oh, brother, here comes Humpty Dumpty again.

                Seriously, Billy: time to hang the eggshell up. In a museum.

          2. 8.3.2.3.2

            It’s not time that is your constraint.

          3. 8.3.2.3.3

            Yes. That is why Alice is through the looking glass and/or down the rabbit hole.

    4. 8.4

      It’s a subtle point but the invention did not ‘improve the computer itself’. The only thing a ‘computer itself’ does is transform data. The invention here did not improve the transformation of every kind of data. While file systems and permissions are important features which are often found on general purpose computers, they are not a feature of the ‘computer itself’.

      1. 8.4.1

        This is interesting. More please.

      2. 8.4.2

        Help me out here, Slashdot Reader, as you seem to want something both ways.

        You seem to want “generic computer” to “BE” everything, but also want whatever this “everything” may be to NOT be “a feature of the ‘computer itself

        Keeping in mind that there is no need for “improv[ing] the transformation of EVERY kind of data” and that improvements to computing systems may (in fact) be merely improvements to different aspects of computing systems (e.g., different features), I am not sure that your attempted subtle point has been made clear.

        In other words, that you claim that there would not be an “improve the computer itself” here is NOT substantiated.

        How is that you want features “found on” this mythical “Generic Computer” NOT be “of the computer itself.” You cannot have them as both “generic” AND as “not the computer itself.”

        1. 8.4.2.1

          mythical “Generic Computer”

          LOL

          What?

          1. 8.4.2.1.1

            You know, that “thing” bandied about by the Office that never has any “objective physical structure”…

            (by the by, you may also want to inform yourself by revisiting the Grand Hall Experiment)

            1. 8.4.2.1.1.1

              …and of course, please reference the pertinent patent law doctrine of inherency.

              1. 8.4.2.1.1.1.1

                …like THAT would ever happen…

    5. 8.5

      Eligible in my scheme as the operating system is the consumer of the information.

      OTH, obvious as the day is long, and not enabled by the claims.

      1. 8.5.1

        Marty,

        I would have hoped that you would have picked up by now just where in a patent application enablement need be.

        Hint: “and not enabled by the claims.” is an embarrassing statement.

      2. 8.5.2

        1. The day is not all that long.

        2. Claims don’t enable things. Specifications enable things.

    6. 8.6

      This claim is not directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality. It is a disembodied method for improving user-computer interface.

      1. 8.6.1

        How is an improvement to a user-computer interface not an improvement to the computer?

        1. 8.6.1.1

          To ask the question is to answer the question.

          1. 8.6.1.1.1

            Are you asking?

  3. 7

    anonymous: The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

    It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room.

    Well, r@ cist opportunistic money-worshipping r@ per-enabling @ h0le adults, anyway.

    Too flippin’ funny for words. Best part: people admitted voting for this guy! News flash: those people need to be shunned and there’s no time like the present. Time to start pulling the carpet out from underneath those irritating co-workers. LOL

    1. 7.1

      I’m really looking forward to hearing what the super deep “Constitutional scholars” around here have to say about a cabal of pseudo-anonymous “senior officials” running the country while preventing a deranged ment@lly incompetent ps ych0 path President from acting on his warped impulses.

      Not that I expect much. Today we saw a Supreme Court nominee unable to state whether a President could crush a child’s testicles with a hammer and then pardon himself afterwards. It’s really nuanced stuff, after all, especially if you’ve got the Koch brothers fists up wedged up your behind.

    2. 7.2

      ?

      Your pet is unleashed again, Prof.

      1. 7.2.1

        :)

      2. 7.2.2

        From my fictional upcoming release of ACT Study Guide Flash Card Series:

        Unleashed is to unhinged as:
        (a) tomayto is to tomahto;
        (b) tomayto is to tomahto;
        (c) tomayto is to tomahto;
        (d) tomayto is to tomahto;
        (e) all of the above.

    3. 7.3

      “Time to start pulling the carpet out from underneath those irritating co-workers. LOL”

      What if they get you first MM?

  4. 6

    Protip: don’t fail to make a claim.

  5. 5

    “Our system needs a relatively quick and cheap way to cancel patents that are clearly invalid and should not have issued. ”

    Maybe, but why do you say that in this case? I don’t judge the claim below to be “clearly invalid.”

    Assuming it was novel and not obvious in 2002, this seems to be a very Enfishy improvement in computers AS tools. So, why would it be “clearly invalid?”

    1. A computing device comprising a processor, memory and program code which, when executed by the processor, configures the device to:
    (i) display a user interface to each of a first user and a second user to share information, wherein each of the user interfaces comprises, for each of the first and second users, (a) a private section configured to display information about files or folders available for the user to share and (b) a common section configured to display information about files or folders shared with the user;
    (ii) share a file or folder selected, from the available files or folders, by the first user with the second user by (a) allowing the first user to identify the file or folder in the private section on the first user’s interface, which is not viewable by the second user, (b) unlocking a protection mechanism of the file or folder to allow access to the second user, (c) storing information about the file or folder, without the content of the file or folder, in a common work place accessible to both the first user and the second user, and (d) displaying information about the file or folder in the common section on the second user’s interface, wherein the second user can access the file or folder through the displayed information; and
    (iii) stop sharing of a file or folder to the second user that the first user has previously shared with the second user by (a) deleting information about the file or folder displayed in the common section on the second user’s interface, (b) deleting information about the file or folder that has been stored in the common work place, and (c) locking the protection mechanism to rescind access to the second user

    1. 5.1

      this seems to be a very Enfishy improvement in computers

      Friendly reminder for the billionth time: Enfish didn’t improve anything. Enfish’s claim was an obvious application of the prior art.

      Also: ineligible (for those of us capable of taking the long view of things).

      Lastly, organizing information using folders and sub-folders was ancient in the art of data organization and existed long before computers. Computers were also ancient before this cr @p claim was filed. Also ancient were computers with displays.

      Merely reciting content that is displayed on a pre-existing computer screen controlled by a pre-existing programmable computer, regardless of whether that content changes in response to user input, is not eligible subject matter for patent protection. It’s just g@ rb@ge. Literally anybody can “innovate” this kind of cr @p.

      Limitations like “a private section” are gigantic red flags that should immediately cause an Examiner to scan the claim for some kind of objective structural limitations. If those structural limitations are absent, the claim immediately is torched under 101. Bye bye!

      Of course everything changes if a proxy server is involved. Now that’s some hot stuff. S00per techn0! LOL

      1. 5.1.1

        Hey Malcolm is that your OPED?

      2. 5.1.2

        “Enfish didn’t improve anything.”

        The court saw it otherwise. If you’re going to hang your hat on the nonsense a court spewed in Alice then you have to accept the outstanding pronouncements of a court in Enfish.

        Even you acknowledge a similarity between the subject claim and Enfish.

        1. 5.1.2.1

          No they didn’t see it otherwise.

          1. 5.1.2.1.1

            How can you say that? They found the claim eligible because they found the self referential database to be an improvement in computers as tools. Or am I thinking of a different case?

            1. 5.1.2.1.1.1

              Enfish’s claims were found to be obvious after they (improperly) survived 101.

            2. 5.1.2.1.1.2

              You are thinking that Malcolm will be “logical.”

              huge mistake.

  6. 4

    >>Our system needs a relatively quick and cheap way to cancel patents that are clearly invalid and should not have issued.

    The power that want to give judges will be abused. This is an age old problem.

    We need a relatively quick way to put criminals in jail (or execute them) that are clearly guilty.

    1. 4.1

      “Need” is overstated.

      This is a “want” – not a need.

      The NEED is found in 35 U.S. Code § 282

      The only “pretending to be born yesterday” is the apparent wanton disregard for what Congress has written.

      1. 4.1.1

        It does accurately reflect the motivation for Alice and Mayo.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          The “motivation” for Mayo was the need to eliminate patent claims that turned otherwise innocent people who merely thought about a new correlation into patent infringers.

          Pretty sure most 2nd year year law students are learning this nowadays.

        2. 4.1.1.2

          “Motivation” — as in, the Ends no matter the Means.

          Pretty sure any decent attorney know the danger of that.

          1. 4.1.1.2.1

            Well, there is that pesky Constitution to deal with.

            Oh wait — the First Amendment doesn’t apply to patent law according to your fearless leader, Big Jeans.

            1. 4.1.1.2.1.1

              …and your 0bsess10n is on display again…

              (As is your inane First Amendment baseless and unsubstantiated claim)

  7. 3

    Question: If I state in my specification that my “inventive” arrangement of data “represents a new structure with tangible benefits in the field of computing”, is that statement enough to create a “question of fact” that gets me past the pleading stage?

    If so, I humbly submit that both the US patent system and the US legal system has been broken beyond repair.

  8. 2

    DC Without a better solution, the Supreme Court functionally blessed this approach — although effective it has some major defects.

    What are the major defects?

    Is there evidence that some substantial number of “important” and valid patents have been improperly tanked? I’ve not seen such evidence. I’ve definitely seen cases where some junk patentee lost a close case with respect to the allegedly “disputability” of a ginned up “fact” but that’s hardly a “major defect” in “the approach.” My guess is that there are far more examples of cases where there are legitimate questions regarding the non-obviousness of the arrangment of structural components recited in the claim and pretty much all of those cases are not tanked on the pleadings (so no “major defect” there).

  9. 1

    DC: All four patents are related to remote hosting.

    Wrong. The alleged “invention” in all four patents is related to creating a hierarchical list, which is ineligible subject matter. End of analysis, period, put a fork in it. This is what happens when you start with the correct premise: you get the correct result, efficiently.

    “Remote hosting” is jargon for one computer being connected to a second computer in such a way that data from the one can be accessed by the second. In other words, it’s a prior art context in which all kinds of events related to “data” (the subject matter upon which computers were well known to act) take place. There are, in fact, no limits on what can be done with the data in such a context other than those limits which apply to data generally. Data can be sorted. Data can be categorized. Data can be marked. Data can be deleted. Data can be protected. Data can be transferred. Data can be put in a folder. The folder can be marked. The folder can be sorted. The folder can be protected. The folder can be transferred. The folder the folder can be put into an RT2-Q5 virtual bundler. The bundle can be marked. The bundle can be deleted. The bundle can be transferred. The bundle can be protected. The bundle can be sorted. And on and on and on.

    Unsurprisingly, the sniveling tr0 ll asserting this junk patent did not invent “remote hosting”. Nor did the sniveling tr 0ll invent folders, lists, hierarchical folders, or lists of hierarchical folders. All the sniveling tr 0ll did here was file patent claims so he could cash in on the bonanza. Even that act was not “inventive” in any way, shape or form. Heck, even the c0 cktail snorting wives of patent lawyers were getting in on that game in 2002.

    can a district court make factual findings contrary to the patent’s specification at the pleading stage

    Answer: yes, of course a district court judge can do that because district court judge’s aren’t obliged to pretend that they were born yesterday. Patent specifications aren’t unassailable tomes of knowledge handed down from some mountain. They’re documents written by human beings and many of them contain laughably false statements and ridiculous assertions, not to mention b0 ne-headed errors. Nothing in our Constitution or any Federal statute requires judges to throw their brains out the window because “patent specification.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture