Patently-O Bits and Bytes by Juvan Bonni

Recent Headlines in the IP World:

Commentary and Journal Articles:

New Job Postings on Patently-O:

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

  1. 3

    Thank you so much for the shoutout to my article on certiorari! For those who are interested, the paper includes both statistics on the rate of Supreme Court review of patent cases as well reports from qualitative interviews with former Supreme Court clerks about certiorari in patent cases.

  2. 2

    Re Prof. Amy Semet’s article: “An Empirical Study Comparing Patent Validity Challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board vs. the Federal District Courts.” [From the “Abstract.”] From a database “of over 12,000 patent PTAB decisions and over 75,000 patent law decisions heard by federal district courts from 2012 through October 2020, this Article analyzes the interplay between the two forums in how patent validity claims are adjudicated, particularly focusing on inter partes review (“IPR”). Reviewing over 7,500 patents assessed at the PTAB over the past six years of the adjudicative tribunal’s existence, the Article analyzes whether there are differences in institution rates and final outcomes depending on the type of patentee owner, the technology type, and whether or not there is a prior or past district court case and decision. While about 80% of PTAB proceedings involve a patent that has or is being litigated in at least one district court, there are only about 2,000 PTAB cases in which the district court has ruled on invalidity grounds. Further, in most cases that do involve a PTAB proceeding, the district court rules a patent invalid based on lack of statutory subject matter—a legal challenge that cannot even be brought in an IPR proceeding. Comparing district court cases where the court rules on eligible PTAB statutory sections—namely obviousness and anticipation grounds—indicates preliminarily that the district court and the PTAB largely agree on outcomes.”

    1. 2.1

      The ‘nak ed’ insertion (and unstated assertion that there are NO problems with the current state of 101 jurisprudence) is the suspicious item here.

      This very much is a “let’s get rid of patents” agenda driven item.

  3. 1

    In Ms. Semet’s paper (abstract) questions whether the grounds for PTAB proceedings should be enlarged to encompass challenges based on section 101 subject matter issues.

    Short answer: No.

    Long answer: No.

    There. Now see how easy that was.

    1. 1.1

      That paper appears to be one of those that raise the ire of Night Writer, advancing the ideology (apparently out of the blue) favored by the Efficient Infringers as to ways to make for weaker patents.

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