Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 3

    The cited Bloomberg Law article by Matthew Bultman: “Investors Eye Patents After ‘Extraordinary’ Damage Awards Run” is particularly interesting in contrast to the many complaints that Alice type 101 unpatentability motions and APJs have ruined the patent system and patent values:
    “A series of head-turning damages awards in patent infringement cases against companies including Cisco Systems Inc. and Apple Inc. may spur additional investment in intellectual property portfolios. Centripetal Networks Inc. was awarded $1.9 billion last month after a Virginia district court judge found Cisco copied patented cybersecurity features. Centripetal said the award may climb as high as $3.25 billion with additional royalties, although Cisco has asked for a new trial. The award is one of several initial damages awards topping $100 million—and totaling over $5 billion—that have been issued during the past 12 months. Jurors said Apple and Broadcom Inc. owe the California Institute of Technology $1.1 billion for infringing patents on Wi-Fi technology. At least some of the awards will likely be reduced or thrown out on appeal, or the cases settled for a lower amount—but their initial size has drawn attention from litigation financiers and investment groups.”

  2. 2

    The article in Nature by Prof. Shobita Parthasarathy has got to be some of the lamest virtue signaling identity politics of Neo-Liberalism seen on this patent blog in a long time.

    Utter nonsense and even shameful that such tripe is given the remotest sense of viability. It is nothing more than a racy-ist thing itself (to use a 6’ism).

    1. 2.1

      That is such an incredibly insightful and helpful comment that my colleagues have decided you should have six (6) US dollars.

      1. 2.1.1

        Thank you.

        But I have to wonder in your haste to satisfy your obsess10n over me, have you not paused long enough to provide some originality to the meme that you would want to borrow here?


          Don’t trip over yourself backtracking, Snowflake. So you getting “20 bucks a pop” is just the latest example of you pounding the table and making stuff up?


            No backtracking from me, and more false assertions from you.

            You clearly were not able to grasp the put down here of your lack of originality.

            What was your role at the patent office before you retired?

                1. You are not making sense. The English language is a written language, 5o cents a pop. It is written and read left to right.

                2. Lol – you are again confusing your own lack with what is easily understood by the common reader.

                  That’s a YOU problem.

                  You might want to own that problem, as you appear to be merely disingenuous if you think that ‘yawn’ or ‘’YAWN’ or:

                  is not understood to be the same thing in each of these configurations.

                  Beep beep.

                3. If you are allowed to visit the US, there are numerous community colleges with adult education classes that may be able to help you with your goals.

                4. More false assertions from you, eh Shifty?

                  With a bit of your projecting going on to boot.

                  Have you figured out the Hawking quote yet? Do you need a third grader to help you?

    2. 2.2

      I just don’t see this in my practice and I work with all sorts of people and companies. Never seen anyone care.

      In The Color of Creatorship, law scholar Anjali Vats focuses on how racism has shaped intellectual-property systems. Patent, copyright and trademark laws and policies have, she argues, imagined whiteness and creatorship as synonymous while consistently devaluing the ingenuity of people of colour. This is particularly pernicious because it is cloaked in technical legal language and in seemingly objective categories such as invention, novelty and infringement. So it goes unchallenged, and shapes our understanding of who can participate in science, technology and markets — and how.

      1. 2.3.1

        Excellent first step for you my pal. The next step is to recognize that these false assertions of yours only make YOU look bad.

        And thank$$


                As noted – YOUR gratis level of whatever YOU (plural or singular) want to chip in is just that: gratis.

                I still enterprise on your choice of inanity at the agreed upon schedule.

                Would you like that link (again) as to YOUR choice in its place of my enterprising on your obsess10n?

                1. As has been noted, your choice of any extra coinage is purely gratis.

                  In case, though, you need a reminder of the levels of my enterprising based on your choice of inanity, check this out:

                  link to

                  (and hint: the hyperlink presenting as going to Patently-O means that it is not a blind link, but merely one to the written record here)

                2. Your cut-n-paste here is out of context.

                  Just what (here) are your proclaiming to be “absolute nonsense?”

                  Are you even trying?

                  Do you need a link to the inanity schedule again for you to see how much your choice nets me in cold hard cash?

                3. Who is this “we?”

                  Have you (finally) decided to figure out how those link thingies work (like, just click on them)?

                4. Beep Beep

                  (love the trainwreck of your continuing to employ the implied false assertion, ESPECIALLY here with you on the record of ‘not doing’ hyperlinks)

                  It’s as if you think that your choice of inanity is somehow a badge of honor for you.

                  Hilarious, in that train wreck way of yours!


  3. 1

    I’ve been doing this for a long time. Once I submit an application to the USPTO I am sure that the examiners don’t care a whit about the race of the inventor.

    I do think it matters whether the company is a NPE or not. And I do think that famous tech companies I work for have it easier than lone inventors. But I’ve never seen an examiner care about the race of the inventor or the origin of the invention.

    The two biases I’ve noticed. It is easier to get a patent for a famous company as there is a presumption that there is really an invention and this is not someone that is scamming the system. I think there is a reason the examiners are more comfortable giving a patent to a big corporation that is rooted in rational sense.

    And, NPEs have it harder as the examiners figure the patent may go to litigation and want to double and triple up on the search.

    But never have I seen an examiner care of the race or origin of a patent application.

    And when you give it some thought there is a rational basis for the biases the examiners show.

    1. 1.1

      I would go one step further and note that the Great Experiment of the US Government system reflects in its core belief that a patent, as a fruition of an inchoate right, was ALWAYS set to be fully alienable, that the notion of “who owns,” and thus most any notion of ‘race’ simply does NOT attach to the way that the system is set up.

      There is NO ‘systemic racy-ism’ here.

      That is NOT to say that the history is without its racy-ism effects**.

      But these are two very different things, and the muddle of identity politics must not be allowed to fester and confuse and conflate these things.

      **As noted by a brilliant commentator on another blog while the discussion of patenting for AI was in focus.

      link to

      throughout (for an interesting discussion of AI), but specifically, comment 23.

    2. 1.2

      For the benefit of lay readers [including some academics] patent applications have no pictures of the inventors and examiners rarely ever see or know the inventors, and nearly half name foreign inventors with foreign names.

    3. 1.3

      “It is easier to get a patent for a famous company as there is a presumption that there is really an invention and this is not someone that is scamming the system. I think there is a reason the examiners are more comfortable giving a patent to a big corporation that is rooted in rational sense.”

      My experience is the opposite. Lots of suspicion from examiners towards large companies that file large numbers of applications.

      1. 1.3.1

        “My experience is the opposite. Lots of suspicion from examiners towards large companies that file large numbers of applications .”

        This is my impression from the inside.

        It would be very interesting to see a serious analysis of the issue.


          Twenty years ago I walked into an interview with a junior examiner handling an application from a large Japanese company that was a client of my firm. He had a primary attend. I introduced myself, shook hands, sat down and as soon as I put the file on the table the primary said to me, “Do you know what the U.S. trade deficit with Japan is?”

          There’s a sh!t ton of bias in the examining corps. Some examiners are deeply suspicious of large companies, others hand out patents to them like Halloween candy.

          I must add though that when I’ve suspected bias against a client I have looked at how the particular examiner(s) treat the client’s competitors and have found generally that the examiner(s) treats the competitors just as badly. Mostly that’s due to incompetence. The examiner(s) is just the typical game playing shenaniganmeister. Other examiners are frenemies, they allow our marginal stuff all the time, but do the same for the competitors.

          I have a feeling a study would confirm all these experiences. Bias exists, but incompetence is the better explanation.


            AAA JJJ, yes it would be interesting to see a study. I freely admit my evidence is anecdotal. I mainly work for a few large corporations that have a reputation for being innovative.

            But I also work for small companies and start-ups.

            Never seen, though, any examiner caring a whit about which country an inventor/company is from.


            “incompetence is the better explanation.”

            I agree. The “prosecutors” or “patent solicitors” in the words of Hal (who inherited the mantle from Irving) should get their heads out of their collective oh, what’s the word? ?


              If I attempt to clarify your comment, you appear to be misconstruing which party is wearing their arse for a hat.

              This is a type of breadcrumb (or dot to be connected) that places you in your pre-retirement days as having held some position within the patent office.


              By the way, congrats, that is your second post in the last six weeks out of about 120 that was not directed to or about me.

              Keep expanding your horizons.


              “Hal (who inherited the mantle from Irving)”

              I think you have that backwards. But I never worked there so I can’t say for sure.

      2. 1.3.2

        Interesting. Maybe it is because the stuff I’ve been working on is actually used in products. I usually point out the product and how the invention affects the behavior of the actual product.

Comments are closed.