Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

19 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

  1. 6

    And the idea that the “presumption of validity” should create some kind of protective bubble around sawed-off shotgun wielding plaintiffs like this is absurd.

    What exactly does that presumption mean to you?

    Legally.

    This is one of the many reasons why Iancu is correctly labeled a fraud, by the way.

    Iancu had nothing to do with writing 35 USC 282.

    You yourself have pretended to be “concerned”

    There was no pretending and my view remain consistent and intact.

    And in contrast, my views are held in support of the Rule of Law.
    You — quite apparently — cannot say the same.

    1. 6.1

      What exactly does that presumption mean to you?

      Legally.

      It puts the burden of proving invalidity on the defendant. That’s pretty much it. And it’s not what “it means to me.” It’s what it means, period.

      Note that the defendant here also was able to prove that the case was exceptional.

      This isn’t difficult stuff, Bildo. Like 101, it’s pretty easy to understand once you wipe your mind free of the incredibly bullcr @p that Big Jeans and Co. has smeared all over it.

      1. 6.1.1

        Try again – the defendant proved nothing here.

        The Rule of Law was s0d 0mized by the feelings of the judge who ignored both the presence and the level of that presumption. There was ZERO effort to comport with the legal meaning here.

        And what is it with your Quinn 0bsess10n? No, wait, I really do not want to know.

    2. 6.2

      Iancu had nothing to do with writing 35 USC 282.

      I never said that Fraud Iancu wrote section 282. He certainly did have a hand, however, in promulgating some absurdly incorrect horseshirt for no reason other than to please his customers and ensure that he has a nice job waiting for him after his ignoble sc-umsu-cking career at the PTO is finished.

      1. 6.2.1

        Great to see you backtrack with the accusations against Iancu in regards to the issue at point here (unless your statements are admissions that they simply were not on point).

        As to the issues with the new protocols, are you trying to argue with me about a view that I do not hold? Maybe pay attention to what I have actually written about those protocols if you want to argue with me about them.

        Yes, this does mean that you will not be able to engage in your one-bucketing.

  2. 5

    Wow. I’ve seen bad reporting before, but wow. Dyson’s “Patent” is merely a published PCT application. The ISR says the claims do not include inventive step and claim 1 is to an electric vehicle with a range of ground clearance, a range of vehicle heights, a range or windscreen angles and a range of distances from the front of the vehicle to the windscreen.

    Yet the article calls it a patent without qualification of any kind a least a half dozen times.

    Interestingly, Dyson is quoted the patents “don’t reveal what our vehicle will really look like or give any specifics around what it will do,” but they do “provide a glimpse of some of the inventive steps.”

    1. 5.1

      claim 1 is to an electric vehicle with a range of ground clearance, a range of vehicle heights, a range or windscreen angles and a range of distances from the front of the vehicle to the windscreen.

      It’s well known that certain windscreen angles are incredibly difficult to achieve when the vehicle is powered by electricity.

      It’s sort of like how putting a computer in a car made it almost impossible to beep the car horn in response to an obstacle. Scientists struggled for years to figure out how to make that horn beep. Some combination of computer waves and Kardofsky signals from the horn created a force field that could only be surmounted by a massive wave of legal incompetence.

  3. 4

    RE: “Atty. Stephen McBride and Atty. Michael D. West: The Intersection Of Octane Fitness And Alice (Source: Mondaq)”
    This notes a predictable “double whammy.” The suing patent owner loses on Alice 101 AND pays the defendants attorney fees! [Unless they had a viable Alice 101 counter-argument.]
    [Fortunately, most suits disposed of on that basis are disposed of early on, on motions, before either party has been subjected to a lot of discovery or trial preparation costs running up attorney fees.]

    1. 4.1

      This notes a predictable “double whammy.”

      Predictable…

      double…?

      The violation of the Rule of Law here is 0b scene.
      Pretending otherwise is even more 0b scene.

    2. 4.2

      This notes a predictable “double whammy.” The suing patent owner loses on Alice 101 AND pays the defendants attorney fees! [Unless they had a viable Alice 101 counter-argument.]

      Two brief responses:

      (1) For better or worse, I agree with you that this outcome is predictable by now. Anyone thinking to sue on a patent covering a financial transaction method like this better think really carefully about how they plan to distinguish Alice. If they do not have an ironclad distinction, they are pretty much asking for a chance to pay all of the legal fees in the case—both their own and the other sides. I do not really like this state of affairs, but one does one’s client no great service to pretend like some other outcome might have been likely on these facts.

      (2) Strangely, the linked article speak of “Finnavation’s Alice defence… .” This is a strange use of the word “defense.” To my mind, the “defense” is an argument offered by the defendant. Finnovation was the plantiff here. I know what the authors were trying to say, but “defense” is not really the word to describe this concept. We need another term for an argument used by the plaintiff to defend the validity of the asserted patent.

      1. 4.2.1

        need another term for an argument used by the plaintiff to defend the validity of the asserted patent.

        How about “Rule of Law” combined with 35 USC 282…?

        Until actually adjudicated otherwise, Congress has already established the necessary “defense.”

  4. 3

    Pretty much every patent granted under Fraud Iancu should be looked at with a jaundiced eye, particularly if there are potential 101 issues.

    That’s Fraud Iancu’s legacy. He was nominated by a criminal s0 c i 0 pa th, and he himself is a l y ing t00l, ly ing on behalf of the least innovative “inventors” and the worst patent attorneys who ever lived. Nobody could have predicted any of this!

    1. 3.1

      What part of his noting the clearly present Common Law scrivined judicial Gordian Knot was a “L I E”?

      1. 3.1.1

        …that’s what I thought (noting yet again that you do not answer this point)

  5. 2

    Plaintiffs need to objectively analyse the strengths of their eligibility arguments under current law prior to suit, understanding that at least in the § 101 context, the district court may not give any weight to the presumption of validity based on the USPTO’s allowance of the asserted claims.

    It’s almost as if the USPTO was discovered to be willfully ignorant or incompetent when it comes to evaluating subject matter eligibility. It’s probably just a coincidence that the current Director is a fraud who has decided to grant ineligible junk at an accelerated rate just to please his favorite “customers.” Nobody could have predicted any of this! Rep uk k ke administration –> more junk patents for greedy entitled lawyers to play games with. Wheeeee!

    You know what else is impossible to predict? How this will end for those “lucky” (LOL) patentees and their ineligible junk.

  6. 1

    “intersection” (Octane and Alice) is more like a train wreck for the Rule of Law.

    The article NOT pointing this out (nearly strong enough) is a DISservice.

    1. 1.1

      You’re a disservice, Bildo. It’s fake bh0le “attorneys” like you who end up screwing over greedy know-nothing plaintiffs like this one with your mindless drivel.

      1. 1.1.1

        Your feelings — and cognitive dissonance — are noted.

        1. 1.1.1.1

          I would never have advised my client to sue on these claims unless they wanted to kiss the claims and their credibility goodbye. And the idea that the “presumption of validity” should create some kind of protective bubble around sawed-off shotgun wielding plaintiffs like this is absurd.

          This is one of the many reasons why Iancu is correctly labeled a fraud, by the way. He is knowingly granting ineligible junk, and he’s doing so on the basis of illegal “rules” that have no basis in common sense or the law. You yourself have pretended to be “concerned” about those cr @p rules, Bildo. Well, this is the predictable result of Fraud Iancu’s “clever” plan. Enjoy.

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